Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for the question—there was a lot in there. I understand that everybody who cares about the culture and arts sector wants the maximum financial support as quickly as possible. I get that. I do not think that anybody would not understand why there is that demand. Incidentally, it is not unhelpful for colleagues in the arts and culture sector to underline why it is important to get those resources as quickly as possible. Having said that, any fair-minded person with an understanding of the wider budget constraints would see not only that we have secured a commitment to a very significant uplift within a short number of years—while other portfolio areas are seeing cuts and decline because of the budgetary constraints—but that the situation is favourable in respect of comparative Administrations.

This morning, I had a look at the Welsh Government’s budget lines in such areas, which include the Arts Council of Wales being cut by 8.7 per cent; the National Museums of Wales being cut by 6.3 per cent; Creative Wales, which is the equivalent of Creative Scotland, being cut by 9.9 per cent; and Cadw, which is the Welsh equivalent of Historic Environment Scotland, being cut by 19.7 per cent. We are in a very different situation, because we have a First Minister, a Deputy First Minister and a finance secretary who were persuaded that we need a significant change to the trajectory that we would have continued on were we to have a flat budgetary settlement or a reduction in budget such as we are seeing in Wales or from the UK Government, given the 6 per cent cut to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s budget.

In Scotland, by contrast, the Scottish Government has made a commitment to a significant uplift in funding, has set out a road map of how we want to get there, has made the first commitment for this year and has given an additional commitment for next year of an uplift of an additional £25 million on the way to there being a sustained annual increase of £100 million.

On Mr Cameron’s point about having a sense of priorities within that increasing spending envelope, I have tried to outline my priorities in my opening statement and what I think should be the north star, or the stars that we should be trying to align with as we increase funding, including external funding. We have the intention of the £100 million rise, the rise of over £15 million this year and the commitment to an additional increase of £25 million next year, on top of that £15 million, but, as Mr Cameron knows, we do not budget three or four years ahead. Given everything that we have been talking about in terms of multi-year funding, there is a tension in that, is there not?

I wish to signal my ambition that culture and arts organisations, whether they come within the ambit of Creative Scotland as regularly funded organisations or are national performing companies and national collections, need to have an understanding of what the financial horizon is more than one year in advance. I am very open to thinking about how we can provide that. That underlines the point that I was making, and I would welcome the committee’s input into thinking about how we do that.

We have a relatively blank canvas in relation to the additional funding once we get through the sustained phase—the changes in Creative Scotland’s multi-year funding and the immediate, existential challenges that we have seen to a number of organisations and venues that we were able to safeguard through this year, which has ensured that increased pay settlements in a time of inflation are fully met. Once we are able to move beyond that sustained phase and into the developmental and innovative phase, I want to work in partnership with the sector, the committee, individual MSP colleagues and political parties. I have had meetings with a number of colleagues on that subject.

I do not think that it is for me to say what my plans for year 3 are regarding individual projects before we have the architecture of the next phase, which will involve increased funding, reformed institutions and a reformed approach by the Government and our agencies to how we do things. That will give us an exciting opportunity to be extremely supportive and helpful to the arts and culture sector, because those who work in it deserve it, they should have it and they know that they will have it from me and the Government that I serve in.

Sorry, but can I stop you there? I have just said that it is £25 million in addition to the £15 million-plus that is being committed in this budget, so it is £40 million-plus.

I totally understand the question that Mr Bibby is asking and that is being asked by people in the wider culture and arts sector who, understandably, want maximum resource as quickly as possible in order for the sector to thrive.

However, we need to understand the budgetary constraints that the Scottish Government is operating under and the relative priority that has been attached to culture and the arts. Therefore, in comparison with, and in contrast to, other Governments in the United Kingdom, we are increasing culture spending. That is important not just as a down payment on the significant increase that has been committed to for culture and the arts; given the actual cuts that are taking place elsewhere, it gives Creative Scotland, among others, the significant means to help us through the sustain period.

Do I acknowledge that there are venues and organisations that will continue to be in financial distress and that will require support over the coming financial year before additional funding is in place? Yes, I do. Can Government and Government agencies do more? Yes, absolutely. Having said that, let us look at specific examples of venues or events—some are in the public realm and some are not—that have had significant support from Creative Scotland or Screen Scotland. Let us look at the Filmhouse or the Edinburgh International Film Festival and others; let us look at the support that we are providing to V&A Dundee. We are intervening, whether as the Scottish Government, Creative Scotland, Screen Scotland or other agencies, to try to get through this sustain period. I am absolutely focused on our being able to do that.

Would I, as cabinet secretary, like to have the additional £100 million in the coming financial year? Yes, absolutely. However, we have been able to secure additional culture funding while other Governments have been cutting it. We have secured additional commitments from the Government on what will be provided next year as cumulative additional support for culture and the arts and I will work tirelessly—as will my officials, Creative Scotland and other agencies—to make sure that we get through this sustain period where there is financial distress, until we are in a position with additional funding but also a renewed approach to culture and the arts, administratively and, yes, financially, to ensure that it is thriving, as everyone hopes that it will.

Speaking for myself, I find it very hard to understand why we do not have national sporting matches—in this case, football—on our public broadcasters. I cannot understand why that is not the case. Why do people need to subscribe to channels that they have never heard of and pay money to watch their national team perform, particularly when it is doing as well as it is? It is beyond me. The difference in the BBC’s approach to the coverage of England, in particular, is there for everybody to see. Why is that? I do not understand that. I say that as the cabinet secretary for culture—sport is an important part of our national culture.

Frankly, it behoves our public sector broadcasters to look at the coverage of our national sports and to ask why we would treat one nation in the UK differently to others in that respect. I think that we know the reason for that, but to me that is not an excuse for ignoring the coverage of Scotland football matches.

Yes, we will do that, and we will report back to you.

I think that we have to use every route in that we can. Many of you will have met Martin Johnson and members of the team at Scotland House, who are very capable at reaching legislators, and we are also in the fortunate position of having a friends of Scotland group in the European Parliament, which goes across the mainstream political families. If members want to speak to colleagues in the European People’s Party, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats or the Greens and the European Free Alliance, there are routes in through the European Parliament and the European Commission. Indeed, it is one of the reasons for our having conversations with other Governments at federal and state level. We want open channels of communication, so that if there are things that we should raise, we will raise them.

Not being present is a problem, and none of that is a substitute for doing what every other normal country does, which is sit on the Council of Ministers and take part in the discussions about what is happening in the European Union, have a nominated commissioner sit on the Commission of the European Union and, indeed, have our full complement of members in the European Parliament making the laws that will have an impact.

The only way to do that is to be a member state of the European Union. Sitting outside in the cold, which is where we are, means that we have to find workarounds, because Brexit has brought about a circumstance in which we are no longer part of the decision-making structures of the EU. Therefore, we will try our best, but there is no substitute for the proper way of doing it.

Yes, absolutely. Perhaps there will be examples where one does not agree, but Mr Bibby’s point is a good illustration of the need for an awareness of where those things come about, which will enable members to question me or colleagues about the thought process that has brought us to the stage of saying that we are or are not able to proceed with things. The point is well made. That is why we are doing this. It is about being as well sighted as we can be in the best, most timeous way, and then being able to ask those very questions. I totally agree.

Hear, hear.

I will ask colleagues to follow up, but I will make a general point first. Imagine that we were in a parallel world where the REUL legislation, as it had previously been proposed, had gone through. We remember that the sunsetting arrangements had been brought in. No doubt were we still in that universe, we would have been sitting here talking about many, many SIs and SSIs. Now, at least, we are in the more fortunate position that we are not doing so.

There is a lot of reflection about those sorts of issues. It has been highlighted to me that there have been three recent cases where people have suggested that the matter may be relevant in relation to employment law or equality law or, indeed, in relation to Rwanda, which is quite current. However, it is not. Do David Maclennan or Greig Walker want to add anything on the specifics of the measure?

I am content with the statement that I outlined to the committee. Thank you, convener.

Motion moved,

That the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee recommends that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Consequential Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 [draft] be approved.—[Angus Robertson]

Motion agreed to.

Thank you very much. On Europe day on 9 May, I reiterated the Scottish Government’s commitment to its EU alignment policy and to providing further information to support the Parliament’s scrutiny role on the subject.

Government policy has not changed. Even in the face of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, with its divergent and deregulatory intent, we will continue to seek to align with the EU where appropriate. That means where it is possible and where it is meaningful for us to do so. The standards that are set by the EU will continue to influence many of the policy frameworks and initiatives that we develop domestically. I am pleased to provide evidence to the committee.

The new annual report improves the transparency of ministerial decision making and increases the amount of information that is provided. The reporting includes our draft annual report on use of the power to align, as required by the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. The report was laid in the Parliament on 31 October.

As the committee knows, since your response to last year’s draft report on the continuity act, officials have been working to expand and centralise the process of managing and sharing information regarding alignment decisions. I thank parliamentary clerks for working jointly with my officials so that we can provide the information that is needed by the Parliament to carry out its scrutiny function.

My letter of 31 October to the committee confirms the details of the extended approach that has been implemented starting in July. Our expanded reporting demonstrates the complexity of taking alignment decisions, and the need for a proportionate approach in that alignment is not always possible as Scotland is no longer part of the structures to which much of EU law relates. We are also constrained by the limitations of the devolution settlement and, of course, the willingness of the United Kingdom Government to respect it.

I would like to mention the independent research that was commissioned by the committee and carried out by Queen’s University Belfast. I agree with its core findings that

“the Scottish Government commitment to align with developments in EU law has largely been upheld”,

and that there has been no

“significant divergence between Scots Law and EU Law”.

I also agree with the report’s conclusion that minor technical divergence will accumulate over time.

Mindful of that, the Scottish Government’s approach includes careful consideration of on-going technical developments in the EU, including via tertiary legislation as well as other instruments. That is illustrated in our expanded annual reporting, although this year’s report only reflects the part of the year during which our updated processes have been in operation.

As outlined in my letter from 3 September, when Scottish Government legislation is laid in the Scottish Parliament, information will now be included in policy notes and relevant memoranda for bills to assist with scrutiny. In the future, our reports will cover a full year and will be based on the same reporting period as that of the continuity act; namely, from 1 September to 31 August.

I would welcome discussion between officials regarding the feasibility of sharing the tracker material that is produced by Dr Lisa Whitten in a timeframe that would allow us to co-ordinate the consideration of its conclusions in our analysis of current EU proposals.

I hope that our revised reporting and these comments are helpful in considering how the Scottish Government is implementing its alignment policy, and I look forward to your questions.