Seòmar agus comataidhean

Having a positive approach and looking at how we can try to make things better is the correct starting point, and it is my starting point. As you might imagine, when someone arrives as a new cabinet secretary, they are presented with a mountain of papers and there is a long track record on the issues. My colleagues who are sitting next to me have long experience of what is going on and I might ask them to come in at the end of my contribution to give some insight into the formal workings of the structures and the scale of the challenge that we face.

Can changes be made? I have taken part in meetings where the people who were taking part were prepared to listen and to co-operate, and that is as it should be, is it not? In fairness, I want to share the fact that it is possible to discuss areas of common concern.

I was asked a question about engagement earlier, and I have had this level of engagement in at least two significant areas. I have taken part in meetings of the co-ordinating committees of the UK Government that are dealing with EU exit. More recently, there have been meetings of co-ordinating committees involving the UK Government on Afghanistan. In both of those cases, I was joined by colleagues from Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as colleagues from a number of UK Government departments. I would describe some of those meetings as constructive, business-like, and engaged. For example, I shared what I thought should be a priority on the issue of the arriving Afghan refugees, which is that we work in a joined-up way to make sure that they are able to go to parts of the UK where they have a connection with places or organisations, because they were translators, they worked with military units or they had an educational link. That seems eminently sensible to me, and a number of people were saying that it is something that we need to look at. You will appreciate that the Scottish Government would partially deal with some of that, but the clearing would be dealt with by the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. I got a positive impression from colleagues in those departments and in the Cabinet Office, so I take that at face value and I hope that the work can be proceeded with similarly.

On issues related to our exit from the European Union, UK Government ministers said on record that they agreed with me on a number of subjects. I do not want to embarrass them, but it was nice to hear that UK Government ministers could welcome contributions that are made in good faith. Therefore, I will start there on that basis.

However, beyond that, in the conversations when we are dealing with the machinery of Government, how do we formally work together on intergovernmental relations? At that point, it is clear that there is a structural problem. Therefore, it is not simply about the individual goodwill or sense of colleagues who can hear a sensible suggestion and go, “That is a sensible suggestion—why don’t we do it?” Rather, it is about when one is involved in discussions about structure or policy and things that need to be signed off and agreed.

I have little doubt that, in relation to matters that are not viewed as partisan, there is good opportunity for informal working, and I will continue in all circumstances to try and work like that. However, on the formal level, we need to know that we are dealing with a UK Government that has a policy about its interaction with devolved Administrations. I stress again that it is not an issue that is of relevance only to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, because our views are shared by the Welsh Government, which is of a different political hue, and, when one speaks with colleagues in Northern Ireland, one hears much the same thing.

Internally, we are trying as best we can to understand where the blockages are on frameworks. The issue of frameworks crystallises our challenge. We have the pre-Brexit commitment to a way of working that respects the devolution settlement in principle and allows us to work out frameworks on the basis of that principle. Incidentally, those commitments were given by Government ministers on the floor of the House of Lords, among other places. We also have the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.

As committee members are aware, there has been internal debate within the UK Government about its form of interaction with devolved Administrations. The term “muscular unionism” has been used by, among others, the Welsh First Minister. In the internal thinking of the UK Government, we have those contradictory positions. The truth is that the UK Government has not yet worked out how to square the circle and whether it will pursue a purely muscular unionist position or deliver on its commitment on frameworks.

That is a very live issue, because I had a positive meeting—in terms of the tone of the conversation—with Chloe Smith about where we were with frameworks, and there has been some back and forward since then. Where we get to will be extremely instructive with regard to where the UK Government is with things. Now that I have reached that stage, I turn to colleagues who have been working on that area to give you a bit of colour and insight into the more technical aspects.

That is great. I can therefore answer Ms Webber’s question at greater length, which will no doubt be a relief.

I will come back to the point about economic growth in a second. On Edinburgh’s United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization status, as the member of the Scottish Parliament for Edinburgh Central, I have the good fortune to represent both the old town and the new town—in other words, the UNESCO site—and that is therefore as extremely important to me as it is to Edinburgh. As you will imagine, I have lots of meetings to discuss a wide range of specifics in Edinburgh Central. Last week, for example, I met, among others, the Cockburn Association, which has a long track record of promoting and supporting Edinburgh’s historic nature. Those are principles that I support and which lie very close to my heart.

This is not part of my curriculum vitae, but I used to be a tour guide on the Royal Mile, so I know both it and the new town rather well. Again, they lie very close to my heart.

I have had much to say about the issue of refuse collection, and I very much thank the member for the plug for my column in the Edinburgh Evening News this week. Instead of regurgitating that, I simply draw members’ attention to it.

An interesting thought for me is that Scotland is not represented at UNESCO, which, for those who are unaware of it, is the cultural organisation of the United Nations. Given that it has representation from the Government of Québec, the Government of Flanders and the Government of Wallonia, perhaps it is worth thinking about our own relationship with the UN’s cultural organisation. After all, it has an influence not just on Edinburgh; there are other world heritage sites in Scotland that are relevant to the discussion, and UNESCO is the key interlocutor in that respect.

I agree that, in relation to the UNESCO world heritage site, we want to do everything that we can to support, promote and protect the extremely important and special nature of the old and new towns, and I encourage everyone who is involved in making decisions about that to work out what the options are. For example, I know that the new town and Broughton community council has been making some suggestions in the past week. I am almost 100 per cent sure that the convener did not expect the new town and Broughton community council to be discussed in this evidence session.

I will segue to the issue of economic growth. You may want me to answer the question on the basis of a further question that people may have. One of the things that excites me most in respect of economic growth—this relates to the culture area of my portfolio rather than to my responsibility as the member for Edinburgh Central—is film and television production. Members will have noticed a big change to broadcasting in Scotland. Five or six years ago, we were lamenting the fact that we did not have a single significantly sized studio in Scotland. We had market failure in screen production terms. That has all changed.

I will widen my observations to cover the rest of the country, but Edinburgh has, for the first time, a significantly sized studio, which is based in Leith. One can add to that the work at the Kelvin hall in Glasgow and Pacific Quay, where we enjoyed success during the recess in ensuring that the BBC did not farm work out. I am delighted that we have an additional studio that will continue to be managed from Scotland. We know from productions such as “Outlander” that we have facilities in Cumbernauld, and season 2 of “Good Omens” will be filmed in West Lothian.

Screen production is now worth hundreds of millions of pounds to the Scottish economy, including Edinburgh, and we are now at a point that we could not have imagined a few short years ago. As the cabinet secretary for culture, I am extremely focused on making that the success that it can be. I hope that the committee shares my enthusiasm and encouragement for supporting that emerging and growing part of the Scottish economy. The potential is groundbreaking.

I have been asked about external affairs. I spoke to many people during the recess, including the director general of the BBC, Tim Davie, and the chief executive of Channel 4, Alex Mahon. I have spoken to the heads of Screen Scotland and Creative Scotland and to others who are involved in the sector about where we are. It is genuinely exciting.

It was genuinely exciting to go to the film studios and see the shooting of “The Rig” with Martin Compston, Iain Glen, Emily Hampshire and others. I do not know how many of you are watching this on television, but I will give an unashamed plug for the BBC, which, on Sunday night, broadcast episode 1 of “Vigil”; episode 2 was on Monday. That also stars Martin Compston—I do not think that everything that is produced in Scotland has him in it, although he is very good. Series 2 of “Good Omens”, starring Michael Sheen and David Tennant, starts filming soon.

With the beginning of streaming services such as Amazon and Netflix, we now have the prospect of permanent screen production in Scotland, which we did not have before. When I was at Bath Road in Leith, I spoke to the young trainees, and their number 1 question for me was, “Can I continue to do this?” They want to continue making films and TV series. I was able to tell them that I am the first cabinet secretary in Scotland with responsibility for that area who can almost guarantee that people going into screen production will be able to have a lifetime career in that sector in Scotland. That was not possible before, but it is possible now.

There is a huge prize to gain in jobs, career development, skills and investment. We must ensure that young people who would like to work in TV and film production get all the skills that they can.

There was an extremely popular initiative during the recess—I do not know whether members saw it. The director of season 2 of “Good Omens”, who is based in Scotland, put a list out on Twitter of all the traineeship posts that were being offered on that production. That was massively oversubscribed, as you might imagine.

Understanding what that means is encouraging. We can learn about that from programmes such as “Outlander”. I am not an aficionado, but I think that it is in its sixth series. People who went into that production during series 1 and 2 have gained experience and become more senior.

We are closing a market failure in the Scottish economy. We have people who are trained and have the skills and, instead of their being exported to work at Pinewood or in Prague, New York or Los Angeles, they can work here. I will not hide that light under a bushel; it is one of the most exciting things in the Scottish cultural sector. We should be doing absolutely everything that we can to help that to be the success that it can be.

That may have been an unexpectedly long answer to your question about Edinburgh’s UNESCO status. However, the question was predicated on economic growth, and I look forward to the screen production sector going from strength to strength.

Forgive me, convener. As my wife would confirm, my hearing is not always on point. I might be accused of having selective hearing. I heard the word “gaming” in the sense of betting or buying a lottery ticket.

It is important to understand that challenge on a political and practical level. On a practical level, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have the formal responsibility for areas that are devolved. We have in place the oversight mechanisms and the formal structures to appropriately manage spending projects and plan across the full range of the devolved areas; the UK Government does not. Local authorities in Scotland and the Scottish Government make all kinds of plans and strategies on the basis of the needs, interests, concerns and expectations of the communities that we all serve; the UK Administration and UK Government departments do not.

Therefore, on what basis will decisions about the allocation of resources by the UK Government in devolved spending areas be taken? At the present, all indications seem to suggest that that basis will be arbitrary, political and politically motivated, and that the UK Government will seek to bypass the devolved settlement, and, incidentally, the priorities that have been set by the Scottish people when they elected you, in the relative strength of the political parties in the Scottish Parliament.

On a political level, there is, clearly, a political motivation in doing all of that. There is an attempt to show that the UK Government cares about Scotland by getting itself involved in policy areas where it thinks it will curry favour with voters—there is a hope that people will say, “Look at the munificence of the UK Government,” as it spends on a range of things that are actually the responsibility of this Parliament and the elected Scottish Government.

Those are the two levels that I see as being most important. People need to be held to account, but the UK Government is not being held to account in this regard, because the place where accountability lies in those areas is in this place, as opposed to with Government ministers representing a Government that has not been elected in this country and most of whose ministers have not been elected in this country, either.

Thank you very much for the question. Again, that is a subject on which the committee could take up the whole of its time talking simply about the scale of the challenge that we are facing in the areas that you mention.

Someone who does no shopping might be living under the impression that things are normal, but those who do their own shopping and who see what is going on in our smaller and larger shops are aware that there is a problem, and it is an increasing problem, sadly. For those who work in any coastal communities where there is an offshore fisheries sector or an onshore processing sector, the impact of Brexit is disastrous. We are now at a stage where even those who were the primary campaigners for the “sea of opportunity” are now regretting, in terms, what has happened since.

There are people working in the agricultural sector who have not been able to conduct their harvest because they do not have the necessary staff. Imagine: you have worked all year, but what you have worked so hard to nurture and grow literally rots because you cannot pick the fruit that you have grown or harvest the crops that you have planted. Those are the realities of Scotland in Brexit Britain. Across the Scottish Government, colleagues are working on these issues, whether that is directly in the agriculture and fish sector or in my area of responsibility.

The impact on the culture sector has been mentioned. On one hand, we should put on record our appreciation of everybody in the cultural community who has worked so hard to try to make sure that, as we emerge from Covid, we can see the bounce back in the culture and arts sector, which is so important to all of us. We should be glad that that has happened. Festivals have begun to run. However, anybody who works in the cultural community would be able to explain to the committee in Technicolor the impact that Brexit has had on people’s being able to come here, and on people from here who are trying to go somewhere else in order to perform. I know about that because I have held a number of sector round tables, so I have directly spoken to the people who are involved.

For example, Spain is a hugely important country for the Scottish cultural community. Scottish music is exceptionally popular there. Many festivals wish to host Scottish performers. Under normal circumstances, there is an established timetable for Scottish performers to be able to perform there. Now, because the UK is outside the European Union—and because, I stress, the UK Government refused an agreement with the rest of the European Union that would have allowed visa-free travel for cultural performance—performers from Scotland are being hit with prohibitive costs. For example, costs are in excess of £557 for Spain. That is deterring performers in general, but it is also deterring performers in specific ways, the impacts of which will take us a while to fully understand.

For younger and emerging performers, who might not earn so much or who might not have such a big following, but for whom performing internationally is an important way of getting experience, growing their profile and—it is to be hoped—becoming a success story, things are so bad that they are literally not going on tour. If they are not going on tour, they are not developing their skills, earning money or developing their following. That will have an impact on the Scottish arts and cultural community in ways that we will learn about only in the fullness of time.

There are alternatives, on which we have been pressing the UK Government. Legal advice that we have seen from the Incorporated Society of Musicians makes it abundantly clear that a visa waiver agreement with the European Union would not require a reopening of the trade and co-operation agreement—which, we have heard, is why the UK Government is not pursuing it. That would allow the UK to continue to control at its borders and would be legally binding. The UK Government had the choice of agreeing to such an arrangement, but it did not do so. The impact of that on the cultural scene is really appalling. I am working very closely with that sector. Those are the best people to explain to you the impact of all of this.

The situation provides an example of how the co-location in my brief of the constitution, external affairs and culture is extremely apposite in the current circumstances. The interactions that the Scottish Government is able to have with other countries on a consular level allow us to highlight those challenges.

Unfortunately what is happening to Scottish performers is also happening to performers on the continent who are not coming here, which is a loss to audiences here who would love to see them. We are a European country, but that is not the only reason why we would like to see performers from the rest of Europe. It is a great loss to the country that fewer people are coming here to perform.

Thank you, convener, for the opportunity to come before the committee so early in Parliament’s deliberations and my tenure as cabinet secretary. As you might imagine, I have a bit of experience of committees—particularly in another place, having served for 10 years on the European Scrutiny Committee, among others, in the House of Commons. I therefore understand the importance of committees and look forward to working with you collegially throughout this parliamentary term, directly in committee, and in the chamber, where you will no doubt be raising issues of interest.

We are at the start of the sixth session of the Scottish Parliament. In 1998, people in Scotland voted overwhelmingly to set up the Parliament after years of Westminster Governments that ignored their wishes and imposed unwelcome and damaging policies.

Devolution has improved people’s lives in Scotland and delivered Governments that they have chosen—at least for devolved policy areas such as health and education. Our Parliament has introduced free personal care, abolished university tuition fees and no one is now charged for prescriptions. The list could go on.

The UK Government is putting all that at risk by taking back control, once again, of key devolved powers, without consent from Scotland—without consent from you and without the consent of the people of Scotland. It is doing so most notably through the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which was imposed on Scotland despite an overwhelming rejection by stakeholders and this Parliament’s explicit refusal of consent. It is also doing so by using Brexit—a Brexit that the people of Scotland overwhelmingly rejected as an ill-disguised attempt to diminish the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Government and this Parliament.

The committee takes up its responsibilities at a pivotal moment. Devolution is under systematic attack from a UK Government that is increasingly hostile to devolution in word and deed. It is doing that directly through legislation such as the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which takes powers from Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament and places them in the hands of UK ministers. It is doing that through direct UK Government spending on devolved matters in Scotland in a way that bypasses the Scottish Parliament, bypasses you and bypasses the democratically accountable ministers, which is likely to have a profound and damaging effect on the devolved budget. It is also doing that through legislation that has a deliberately wide interpretation of what is reserved under the devolution settlements, or by ignoring the legislative consent decisions of this Parliament. It has done that four times since the European Union referendum alone—a convention that past UK Governments of various stripes had scrupulously observed since 1999.

This is not just happening in Scotland. The Welsh First Minister, Mark Drakeford, said that the UK Government is continuing to

“steal powers and money away from Wales.”

The Scottish Government will do all that we can to keep Scotland safe and protect the gains of devolution and our democratic rights.

We remain committed to working with the UK Government and other devolved Governments in an equal partnership on common frameworks, and on voluntary arrangements based on progress by agreement between equals, offering a model for future co-operation. However, such arrangements can work only if all parties are prepared to respect devolution and proceed on the basis of equality and mutual respect.

Sadly, there is little evidence that Westminster wants an equal partnership. Instead, it has resorted to unilateral control. Make no mistake—the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is clear evidence of a UK Government that is committed to actively constraining and overriding decisions made by the Scottish Parliament without its consent. Delegated powers in the 2020 act mean that devolved policy choices can be brought within or excluded from the scope of the legislation’s market access principles by UK ministers alone, with or without the agreement of this Parliament, and with or without your agreement. All members of this committee and Parliament, irrespective of party, should be deeply concerned about that and should oppose the damage that is being inflicted on devolution.

I am sorry to say that, faced with a UK Government that is determined to centralise power at Westminster, there is a limit to what can be done in mitigation. The outdated fixation on Westminster sovereignty allows any UK Government with a majority in the House of Commons to strip or override devolved powers without consent, should it wish to do so. Let us not forget that the current UK Prime Minister is on the record as describing devolution as “a disaster”.

That is a far cry from the devolution settlements that were agreed in 1999, and it cannot offer a stable basis for equitable and productive relations between the Governments of these islands. It demonstrates why, as we recover from the pandemic and try to mitigate the wholly avoidable consequences of a hard Brexit that we did not vote for, the people in Scotland have the right to decide their own future. At the recent election, the Scottish Government was given a clear mandate to offer the people of Scotland a choice over their future once the Covid crisis has passed. It will then be up to the people of Scotland, not a Westminster Government that they did not vote for, to decide how Scotland is governed.

In conclusion, it is increasingly clear to me that the choice that the people of Scotland face is between a greatly diminished devolution settlement that is under constant threat from the unilateral actions of a hostile UK Government and our being an independent country, which is part of the European Union, with the full range of powers that is needed to keep Scotland safe, to recover from the social and economic damage of the pandemic, and to flourish in a genuine partnership of equals with our friends across the rest of the United Kingdom.

Given your observation about the wide range of the committee’s remit, convener, I should say that it is probably unrealistic for us to be able to cover all the issues that you might have questions about in one hour. I therefore reiterate that I look forward to coming back to the committee, and, in the meantime, I hope that we can inform the committee about any queries that you might have through letters.

By way of an update on the status of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, the legislation has been in force since 1 January 2021, and Scottish Government officials are engaging across a number of related fronts on a factual basis and without prejudice to ministers’ fundamental opposition to it. The Scottish Government is seeing a wide range of impacts on policy and on public investment, and the frameworks team can supply further detail on request, if the committee wants a bit more information on that, relating to examples of known and emerging risks to devolved decision making, and on technical aspects of the 2020 act’s operation.

The Scottish Government’s concerns have been shared with the UK Government, and we have been working in conjunction with colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland. The views that I am expressing today, and which the Scottish Government is expressing, are shared by the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. This will be a really big issue throughout this parliamentary session, and we will no doubt come back to it again and again.

In the precisely two and a half minutes that I have to answer that question—

I suspect that the gaming sector is the area that I will have to write back to the convener about after the evidence session. I can speak generally. This is not gaming in the sense of betting, although there is a lottery in the locus because the headquarters of the People’s Postcode Lottery is in Edinburgh Central. That impacts significantly on the culture and charity sector. I may have come to this by a circuitous route, but it is relevant to the committee and to me as a minister and as an MSP. I was previously unaware of it because I am not a gambler and do not buy lottery tickets; you may be experts, but I am not. The lottery is a charitable organisation and the numbers are extremely significant. The lottery is very forward leaning in its work with charities, especially in the cultural sector. It works on a grass-roots level and is also supportive of larger cultural organisations.

Some aspects of lottery governance come under devolved legislation and some relate to reserved legislation. The committee might look more closely at that to see whether it is relevant. There are unresolved governance issues that affect that Edinburgh-based lottery and its ability to grow and to continue to support charities and cultural organisations. The committee might want to have a look at that.

I am so sorry—