Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a very good question to end on, as a takeaway for me and my colleagues. Given the new circumstances in which we find ourselves with the UK Government’s new approach to the legislation and its intentions in dealing with retained EU law, we are in a different environment regarding how we might be able to integrate the needs, interests, concerns and expectations of third sector and other organisations with a particular policy locus. Obviously, and in parallel, that also applies to parliamentary colleagues and specific committees.

As the cabinet secretary with responsibility in the area, I definitely want to be satisfied that, however we move forward after the passage of this legislation, we can do so in a way that integrates the expertise and understanding of organisations that have an interest in particular policy areas—Mark Ruskell mentioned one of those earlier. We want to ensure that Scotland remains aligned with the legislation, values and better standards of the European Union, to which the Scottish Government and the majority of members of the Scottish Parliament still remain committed.

With a bit of luck, you will be able to hear me. Are people nodding? I see that the convener is giving me the thumbs up.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee. I am sorry that I am not able to join you in person—I am in Brussels promoting major events in Scotland, including the world championships that are taking place later this year.

This morning’s evidence session is an opportunity to update the committee on our response to the UK Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. You will know that the UK Government has finally seen sense and has scrapped its plans to automatically remove thousands of EU laws from the UK statute book by the end of this year. However, let us be clear that the fundamentals of the bill have not changed. I draw the committee’s attention to three particular issues.

First, the bill continues to put at risk vital protections that have been enjoyed by the people of Scotland for almost 50 years. Although the automatic sunset has gone, the UK Government is still planning to scrap almost 600 pieces of retained EU law by the end of December, while the rest of the laws remain in the scope of the UK Government’s reform and deregulation agenda. My officials received a list of those 600 laws only three weeks ago. At least nine of them are a cause of real concern. I have no confidence—zero confidence—that the UK Government will agree to their removal from the bill before it is given royal assent, which can only be a few weeks away. Officials are considering how best to provide information on the list to the Parliament.

Secondly, UK ministers remain empowered to act in devolved areas, without—[Inaudible.]

Thirdly, the amendments to the bill clearly triggered the legislative consent requirement on Friday 19 May. I received a letter from minister Ghani asking for that consent. However, by Monday 22 May—that is, one working day later—the UK Government had decided to proceed without it.

My officials continue to assess the long-term policy implications of the bill. I reassure you, convener, and your committee colleagues that I want to maintain an open dialogue with the committee as we make progress on that. I am happy to take questions.

Convener, forgive me if I am repeating anything that you have already heard, I do not know the point at which I was cut off.

I was reflecting on the fact that not only do common frameworks play a role in intergovernmental relations in the UK but there is also the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which was legislated subsequently and is, in many respects, trumping the common frameworks approach to things.

I was also reflecting on the fact that, before the 2020 act, I could easily have imagined a Scottish Government proposal about the introduction of minimum unit pricing for alcohol, for example, making its way through the common frameworks process. However, the UK Government would now be far more likely to invoke the 2020 act in such situations, as it is effectively doing in relation to the proposals for a deposit return scheme—by including glass and using that to block progress.

One cannot look at common frameworks in isolation from how the 2020 act can work and how the UK Government chooses to use it to block policy proposals in devolved areas.

You can see on the screen that I am joined by Chris Nicholson, Greig Walker and Elliot Robertson. They are colleagues of mine and they advise on these issues. I will make some general observations about your question, Mr Cameron, and then ask whether any of my colleagues want to add their comments.

The list of nine laws that include devolved competence that we believe might still be operable in some way are areas for which further consideration is needed. Some might be of more import and some less, but the fact that they have an impact on areas of devolved responsibility and are currently operating is beyond doubt.

We have raised concerns with the UK Government about those laws, which include energy efficiency regulations, port services regulations and other things, but it is our understanding that the schedule will not be amended prior to royal consent, which is anticipated in June.

Part of the challenge that we face is that the UK is extremely keen to pass the bill extremely quickly, notwithstanding its major change in approach, so our ability to play a significant role in the process is much diminished. We remain in close contact with the UK Government on the issue, but it is fair to say that there is no expectation of the schedule being amended prior to royal assent.

Would any of my colleagues on the call wish to add any observations with regard to the list of nine items and our ability to influence the process in that respect at Westminster?

I am indeed.

That relates to how the question of how the Scottish Government can manage the alignment process with retained EU law that we wish to see maintained on the Scottish statute books when a United Kingdom Government might not be minded to look sympathetically at Scotland remaining aligned with higher European standards in any given policy area. I have to say that, given the current approach of the UK Government, I would be very concerned that it will look to involve itself in decision making in policy areas that are devolved using the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 as a mechanism to, in effect, disregard the priorities of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament.

There are two elements to Mark Ruskell’s question. First, what does the Scottish Government need to do to ensure that it remains aligned with European Union legislation after the passage of the bill and the new approach in it? As I reflected in my previous answer, we are currently working through that. Secondly, what is my assessment of how the United Kingdom Government will act in relation to our preferred policy priority, which is to remain aligned with European Union standards where the UK Government’s avowed position in many respects is to become non-aligned with them? It wishes to diverge from European Union standards and, as we have seen in other policy areas, would be unhappy for Scotland to do—[Inaudible.]

In correspondence, the UK Government has suggested that it has changed its approach to retained EU law from the hard cliff edge for all legislation to a more limited schedule of legislation that is to be taken off the statute book in part because of the opposition of the devolved Administrations to the original approach. The suggestion is that there has been magnanimous reflection on our persuasive interventions and that that has, in part, led to a change in UK policy. I suspect that the impending defeat in the House of Lords was much more important to the UK Government’s consideration of the matter than listening to the arguments put by the Scottish Government or Welsh Government on the issue.

I deal with the UK Government regularly, and my general impression is that the involvement of the Scottish and Welsh Governments is tokenistic and a box-ticking exercise to say that one has “consulted”. However, I see very little evidence of the UK Government acting on the concerns that are raised and its U-turn on the sunset provisions in the REUL bill was almost entirely down to the arithmetic in the House of Lords, which would have seen the Government lose votes on amendments that were supported by members of the House of Lords with whom we have been co-operating.

I will have to write to the committee on the specifics of the analysis of the nine measures. It would, however, be correct to say that the Scottish Government’s response to the schedule of legislative measures that are to be sunsetted as part of the UK Government’s reformed approach to the REUL bill has been made more on the basis of whether something pertains to a devolved area of competence rather than whether it impacts on any specific policy consideration. It is about understanding whether the legislation is in a devolved area of import and whether it is relevant to that.

Ergo, the devolved Government should explain to the UK Government that the sunsetting of legislation in that way should not go ahead until there is proper governmental and, no doubt, parliamentary understanding of the impact. I think that that goes to the nub of Mr Macpherson’s question—obviously, I welcome him to the committee, as I did Mr Bibby.

Having said that, I am keen to ensure that the committee is updated, so I undertake to update you on our best understanding of the nine specific measures as they might pertain to any specific on-going policy, or policy development, on green freeports, which Mr Macpherson asked about.

First, I note that that is an extremely sensible reflection on the circumstances in which we find ourselves. For the record, it is important that we understand the context of why meeting net zero and climate targets is so challenging in this area. We are talking about how we can, in large part, retrofit buildings and facilities that were built at a time when one did not even conceive of the climate and environmental challenges that we now face. How does one retrofit a castle, or an older building or facility, in a way—to go back to Mr Golden’s point—that can involve a workforce with the skills to be able to do that appropriately?

For example, Historic Environment Scotland still has stonemasons, to protect and restore historic buildings. One needs traditional, older skills, which are, perhaps, less a part of the mainstream economy. During the Dumfries roundtable, I heard about that in relation to leatherworking—again, a mainstream skill 100 or 150 years ago—which is now very much in demand both in the equine sphere and in fashion. It is a multibillion-pound industry.

I heard the point that was made in evidence to the committee, and I hear very much what Maurice Golden said about matching the skills to the requirement in that part of the sector. Given that that has just been raised with your committee, and that you are raising it with me now, Mr Golden, I definitely want to make sure that we do everything that we can to help those in Government who have responsibility for skills and training.

It is exactly the same as the opportunity/challenge that we have had in relation to screen. Suddenly, a part of the economy is booming and we require people who have the skills to support the industry. People need to be able to find the appropriate training courses, the opportunities to learn and the route map into that industry. There is a direct parallel.

I want to look into that more and I will be happy to report back to Mr Golden and colleagues. The point was extremely well made.

First, the process itself has been exceptionally valuable, with significant levels of participation across the sector. It is a continuation of an approach that was taken during the Covid pandemic whereby having regular discussions with representatives from across the culture and arts sector meant that we were able to understand the themes, needs, interests, concerns and expectations of people in the sector. Obviously, during the pandemic, much of that was linked with the extreme circumstances of the lockdown and the income difficulties that individuals and organisations faced in the culture sector.

Now, we have obviously moved on, and organisations are able to perform and tour and people are trying to bounce back from the pandemic. A broad range of themes is emerging that still needs to be brought together in report form. We will, no doubt, be able to share that with you and other committee members. As you might expect given the range of participation, from individual freelance performers or people involved in other aspects of culture and the arts all the way to larger organisations, a very broad range of issues is being flagged up, which are reflective of the underlying factors. Incidentally, I should say that I also held a meeting with the national performing companies last week.

This is about how organisations can continue to operate in circumstances in which there is a squeeze on their income because they have perhaps not yet fully recovered to pre-pandemic levels in relation to the number of ticket sales or visitors. There are also the additional costs of heating overheads and inflation.

As we know, at a national level, inflation is officially at just over 10 per cent. However, we are hearing from participants that inflation in many areas that impact directly on culture and the arts can be a factor of that—I have heard figures of inflation of up to 30 per cent impacting on organisations. As one might imagine, those participants that have property—theatres and the like—have significant overheads that are squeezing their finances.

On top of that, some participants are reporting that other income streams that have traditionally played a significant role in their finances are also being impacted. The amount of financial support through philanthropy, for example, is proving challenging for some organisations.

Public funding is also of huge importance to the culture and arts scene in Scotland, as it is in most countries in the developed world. As we have discussed at committee before, one often hears the request for individuals and organisations to have the greatest possible certainty. We hear a lot of support for the intentions of the Scottish Government to support multi-annual funding horizons for individuals and organisations, which is the direction of travel that we are on.

A very strong theme that is coming back from all the meetings is that the culture and arts sector wants to work collaboratively through these difficulties. There is an appreciation that things will not improve in the short term, given the economic circumstances, and there is a willingness among those in the sector to consider what they can do. No doubt suggestions will also be made about what we, in the broadest sense—that includes the Scottish Government, agencies such as Creative Scotland, Screen Scotland and Historic Environment Scotland, and all the different stakeholders—can do to make sure that we get through this most extreme of circumstances, having protected and supported our culture and arts community.

One factor, which I have been hearing more of and on which we all need to reflect, is people saying that it was personally hugely challenging for them to get through the pandemic. Funding was available for that period, but, with the UK Government now ending that support, one hears people say that their level of personal challenge remains acute because of the uncertainty about the medium and longer term.

We need to reflect on the pressures under which people are operating and the responsibilities that they have to themselves or to small or larger organisations. Everybody is cognisant of examples—I have seen some recently—of beloved organisations and venues finding themselves in existential financial difficulty, which is obviously making others concerned about what the future holds for them.

As soon as we work up a read out from those round-tables meetings, I will ensure that the committee is able to see it; together with the evidence that you have taken here, that will help your deliberations and ours.