Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am very interested, in principle, in identifying any funding sources that might support music venues and organisations in addition to—not supplanting—public funding. I made mention of that in my opening statement. A lot more could be done in that area. We talk quite a lot about philanthropy as one income source, but there are others, including, potentially, ticketing.

The member’s predecessor on this committee asked me about the issue with great focus, and I raised it with the previous UK culture secretary. As I have alluded to, some take the view that some elements of the issue are reserved. We need greater clarity around that, along with an understanding of the ability of the devolved Administrations to work with UK Government partners to look at the likes of a ticket levy, because it is viewed as a tax.

I am trying to give the shortest answer that I can—

Yes—for this incoming year.

I am sorry, but as an additional point, I think that it is helpful for viewers to be aware that the current Scottish Government is operating in a minority parliamentary situation. To get a budget through, it will require a majority of MSPs to vote for it. That is why this is not just a question of commitments by the Government. I have given the Government’s commitments; I have underscored those commitments; and I reiterate them. What I wish to communicate to colleagues is that, if we are agreed that the scale of the challenge is such as it is, and if we are agreed that we require to deliver additional resources of the scale that the Government has committed to wanting to deliver, we need to vote for that.

I totally refute—

Ireland definitely benefits from a strong, unified and non-partisan approach to its promotion internationally, and it does things that are so much further ahead of where Scotland is within a devolved context. The scale of its international network, for example, is by a significant factor larger than Scotland’s, and it is able to deliver significantly more than we are able to.

We just need to look at the efforts to promote Ireland in and around St Patrick’s day alone. Literally the entire Irish Government is dispatched around the world, including to Edinburgh, to promote Ireland at events. Unfortunately, there has up to now not always been consensus on whether the Scottish Government should be promoting Scotland at all, and again, unfortunately, there have been political actors who would seek to criticise any form of international promotion or engagement.

That has been to Scotland’s detriment, because, notwithstanding the difference of views on Scotland’s constitutional future, when we talk about promoting Scotland internationally, we are talking about exports, inward investment, tourism, education, culture and everything else that fits under the brand Scotland umbrella. Again, that is something that should have cross-party agreement and support. For those who are unaware of it, brand Scotland, which has been operating since 2018, brings together our national agencies in a way that other countries are very jealous of, to promote Scotland internationally.

There are, therefore, some things that we do very well and on which there should be—and, I hope, is—cross-party agreement in promoting. Our international networks have been supported by different parties; Scotland house in Brussels was established under the Conservatives, while other parts of the network were established during the first sessions of the Scottish Parliament and, since 2007, have been built on by the current Administration. Different parties have been involved in developing Scotland’s international network over the years, and I think that one of the lessons from Ireland is that wider and broader support of promotional efforts is a good thing.

I do not want to be too self-critical, though, so I would just point out that a cross-party Scottish Parliament delegation has taken part in tartan day and tartan week since their inception. The Presiding Officer represents the whole Parliament, and in recent years, we have even seen the UK Government begin to show an interest in tartan day and tartan day events. I hope that we are—with a bit of luck—building some consensus around Scotland’s international promotion being a good thing. I think that it was before Mr Brown’s time on the committee, but I would observe that I have been encouraged by colleagues on this committee—in fact, it was the previous deputy convener who suggested this—to enlarge the Scottish Government’s international network to include countries in South America.

I think that there is an ambition in this respect, and I want to do anything that I can to encourage colleagues across the parties to support the international network, international promotion and our work with the diaspora. I am certainly very keen to work with colleagues on a non-partisan basis to make that happen.

We have a colleague, who is joining me virtually, who is on the front line of that in Brussels. We have an office in Brussels that works with European institutions to be aware of European Union regulations and proposals, as far as is possible. We look across the piece of those and we try to work in a way that allows us to maintain our alignment with the European Union, as far as is possible.

You will have to forgive me, because you will appreciate that hundreds and hundreds of different proposals are brought forward and you have not invited me today to speak about the specific issue that will be discussed more next week. However, with regard to the generality of the matter, the Scottish Government, its office in Brussels and our agencies are working with a view to remain as closely aligned as we can and to avoid significant divergence between Scotland and the European Union. That is the aim of the Scottish Government. There will be examples where that is not the case but, with regard to the generality—the direction of travel—that is the policy of the Government, and we are doing as much as we can.

I think that Mr Ruskell and other committee members will be aware that we have been working closely with the committee clerk to ensure that members are informed about how that is done and that there is a reporting mechanism to the Parliament on alignment. That is a work in progress, but we want to ensure that the committee and parliamentarians are informed, as much as is possible, about those alignment efforts.

Scottish Government agencies will always do whatever they can to support the Scottish export sector. The responsibility for the UK border regime lies with the UK Government. The Government that has responsibility for policing border arrangements—literally—is the UK Government. This is a very clear example of where we will try what we can to ameliorate problems. Scottish Enterprise, Scottish Development International, the Scottish Government agencies, and the Scottish Government itself, which regularly meets representative organisations and exporting companies, will do everything that we can to ensure that unnecessary red tape or barriers to trade are removed.

A good example of that—one of the biggest prizes, short of rejoining the single market and the European Union—would be to have a comprehensive SPS agreement. I know that this area is like acronym soup—it involves a lot of technical language. In effect, that would mean having what is known in common jargon as a veterinary agreement. My understanding is that such an agreement would reduce the necessity for about 90 per cent of cross-border checks, were there to be such a thing. I think that I am right in believing that the current and outgoing UK Government does not agree that there should be an SPS agreement. My hope, which has been communicated publicly, is that, were there to be a new and different UK Government, it should aim for an SPS agreement—a veterinary agreement—which would make export and import much easier.

So, in short order, the responsibility for a hard Brexit, for borders and for Brexit red tape is the UK Government’s. It owns it. It has delivered it. It said that it would be an improvement. It is not. We will do everything that we can to reduce the damage that Brexit has caused, but it will only ever be at the margins. The only way that we can obviate that damage is to rejoin the single market and the European Union; everything else will only ever make a marginal difference. We are outside the European Union now, which means that those barriers are there. Nothing will change that, short of rejoining the single market and/or the European Union. I am in favour of doing both.

Ultimately, the all-Government responsibility lies with the First Minister. As I think everybody knows, the sustainable development goals emerged from the United Nations, so they are an external affairs area of responsibility. However, Mr Ruskell has made the point that the matter cannot sit within a silo, and it must be seen across Government.

Mr Ruskell’s question is well timed as it allows me to underline the next steps in reflecting on how we capture all that in our reporting to ensure that any concerns that he has about such matters being seen only in silo terms are much more generally understood. For very obvious reasons, they cannot be understood in only one part of Government.

That is a really good example. What Mr Brown points to is correct. It is my experience, when meeting with European decision makers, whether in national capitals or in European institutions, that there is a very strong predisposition towards Scotland as a pro-European nation and a wish to be as helpful to Scotland as they can be.

A very good, concrete example of where we have an opportunity to make the most of that is the energy question that I alluded to in response to Mr Ruskell. I do not think that it is widely reported here that the German economy is going through one of its most significant transitions since the industrial revolution. Germany is moving away from a reliance on hydrocarbons—in particular, Russian gas—and toward fuelling its engineering-based economy with hydrogen. It is doing that right now. However, Germany is unable to provide its indigenous industry with the amount of renewable energy, in the form of electricity or hydrogen, that it requires, so it will need to import that. Scotland and our northern European neighbours can be a big part of the answer.

When I speak to German decision makers, as I did recently in Berlin, they tell me that they are really keen to be able to import—to buy, so it would be a benefit to the sector in Scotland—hydrogen and hydrogen-related products as soon as possible. For that to happen, we will require interconnection between Scotland and Germany, and we will require the UK Government to reach regulatory agreement with the European Union relating to that.

To Mr Brown’s question, then, I would say yes, there is massive goodwill and massive interest, but our relationship is determined not just by our direct contacts. Indeed, that is one of the reasons for our having a strong external affairs approach—we are trying to maximise the opportunities that we have through the goodwill that exists for Scotland—but we are still relying on a UK Government with reserved powers in relation to these energy questions to land that success for the energy transition in Scotland.

We will do everything that we can to prepare the way. We will say to UK Government ministers, “This is a huge opportunity. Please, can you act?”, and I have impressed that on the outgoing Government and will be impressing it on any potential incoming Government. After all, the Germans are acting, regardless of what we do in Scotland and the UK. Either we can be at the forefront of this energy transition on the European continent or we can miss the bus, and it will be decision makers in London who will ultimately determine whether that is the case.

I wish that that were not so; I wish that we could just get on with this ourselves; I wish that we were in the EU; I wish that we were able to agree the regulations ourselves; and I wish that we were able to make progress on the subsea interconnector, which involves powers that are currently reserved. However, we cannot. We will do what we can, but ultimately it will be UK ministers who will determine the speed and the success of this happening. If it fails, they will bear the responsibility for that.

I am at the convener’s discretion here, because, as I think Mr Bibby knows, there will be two evidence-taking sessions this morning, the second of which will relate to the Government’s international network and its evaluation. If the convener wishes me to speak to that in this evidence session, I am happy to do so, but would you prefer that I did so in the next evidence session?