Seòmar agus comataidhean

On that topic, I am interested in hearing your views on whether there is a role for the performers in your companies—we have not really spoken about them today—in measuring impact.

Good morning and welcome to the 13th meeting of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee in 2023. We have received apologies from the convener, Clare Adamson MSP, so I will be chairing today’s meeting.

The committee has a new member: Neil Bibby MSP has replaced Sarah Boyack MSP. I thank Sarah for her many and varied contributions to the committee’s work over the past few years. We greatly look forward to working with Neil Bibby. Neil gives his apologies for not attending this morning’s meeting, however. His substitute is Foysol Choudhury MSP. Foysol—I invite you to make any declaration of interests that you might have in relation to the committee.

Good morning, everyone. I want to explore two areas. The first concerns what might be termed barriers to culture. We have had a lot of individual responses to the committee’s inquiry. The issues that have arisen will not come as a surprise to many of you. They include a lack of public transport, especially in rural areas, and a lack of options for young people and young families. One issue that resonated with me was raised by a person from the Highlands, who said that there were more events during the tourism season and not so many at quieter times of the year. Other issues included access for disabled people, prices and availability of venues.

As I said, I do not think that those issues will come as a surprise, but I wonder if I could have your observations on all, some or any of those issues. I do not know who wants to go first—perhaps Rebecca Coggins.

I had a separate comment or observation to make, but I will make it now for the sake of time.

Creative Scotland told us that there are certain cultural practices that do not necessarily take place in theatres or music venues. In that respect, it highlighted Gaelic culture and traditional music, but I am sure that we can think of others. Do the witnesses have any views on that, in addition to the point that I made earlier?

I appreciate that that question slightly segues into the question of what cultural need is. I have been struck by your responses on co-production and determining cultural need organically through what people say, so you might like to address that, too.

I am sorry—I have asked quite a lot.

My question is on the back of something that the convener asked about. You went into it a little in your answer. Do you think that the problems that we have identified have been incubating since devolution and that Brexit has just thrown an intensity into the system? Do you have any further observations on that?

My second question is about section 35, which you mention in your submission. We all realise that that issue has nothing to do with Brexit; it has come to the fore in recent months because of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. The committee heard evidence from Professor Jim Gallagher two weeks ago. Referring to section 35, he said:

“It is there because devolved legislative power is writ very wide. The test of devolved competence is wide, because it involves anything that does not ‘relate to’ a reserved matter.”

Therefore,

“there is a real possibility that devolved legislation would have a material effect on law in relation to reserved matters but still not be reserved, so some kind of safety net was inevitable.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 9 March 2023; c 32-33.]

What is your response to that? Do you agree with him?

I do not agree with your view that the use of section 35 is indirectly to do with Brexit—I just do not accept that. I do not think that it has anything to do with Brexit at all. Also, you make a lot of assumptions about the use of section 35 in relation to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which, again, I do not accept.

I want to ask about the Scottish Government’s keeping pace power. As you know, the Scottish Government has a stated policy of keeping pace with and aligning with EU law. Have you any observations about the effects of that policy in a post-Brexit world where the UK Government has, at this stage, very much taken the opposite view?

You made the interesting comment that, if the solution in the Brown report takes effect, Sewel will be a matter for a second chamber. Does that not just politicise it? It does so in a slightly different way, but it renders it a question of politics. Similarly, if you were to create conditions where Sewel was either applied or not applied, could that, ultimately, render it a matter for litigation in the courts?

Good news for the lawyers, by the sound of it.

Akash, do you have any comments on that or on the wider question of intergovernmental relations?

Thank you.