Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not sure whether I have the microphone, but I will carry on as if I do.

I think that these areas are being explored by officials in the Scottish Government and at Westminster. Following on from what my colleagues have already said, I think that there are other related issues with regard to the extent to which measures are fully devolved or on which there is a degree of shared competence. I do not think that it will come as a surprise to committee members to learn that this was always a consideration that gave us concern.

It is not as simple as saying that the Scottish Government would wish something to remain on the statute book in Scotland, whereas the UK Government might wish it no longer to be on the statute books that would apply to England and Wales; it is about whether there is a duty on both Governments to try to deal with issues where there are currently shared competences that are a contributing factor to the complication of the situation in which we find ourselves.

I suppose that that is a reflection of the circumstance being fast moving, because we do not have clarity on all of that. It leads to the subsidiary but no less important point about what the role of the Scottish Parliament, in committee or plenary, is in relation to having an understanding of the process and being able to play a part in scrutinising it.

I will have to defer to colleagues about specific outside organisations but I make the general observation that, at the heart of the question is a reflection on the difficulty of trying to deal with hundreds and thousands of pieces of retained EU law and work out which are still operable, which apply and which require to be incorporated into what is being described as assimilated law and to do so in such a way as to get maximum external expertise as part of the process. That is one of the areas that, for anybody who cares about having the best legislative standards that we can have, is deeply problematic because, as I have said a couple of times this morning, we are dealing with a fast-moving situation.

Until recently, we were dealing with a situation in which the major concern—not the only one, but the major one—was that, among the thousands of pieces of legislation that might fall off the statute book, there might be additional laws that one had not even identified as being relevant and retained but would fall off the statute book because they were overlooked. Now, because of the change in the UK Government’s approach, we have a list of 500-plus pieces of legislation to be added to the schedule.

The question of due diligence on all those measures is good. Whether one can say with absolute certainty that all the laws beyond the nine that we have identified as potential matters of concern have a clean bill of health is definitely a question. I have been keen to ensure that we are as confident as we can be that we are not losing the high standards that European Union membership and legislation guaranteed for us before Brexit because, as the committee knows, it is the Scottish Government’s policy to remain as closely aligned as possible to the high European standards that exist.

We are seeing a pivot in the UK Government’s approach to dealing with retained EU law and are having to use our resources as quickly as we can, given the timescales that the UK Government has now imposed on us in its legislative programme. That will evolve if we are to assume that the bill is passed. However, that raises as many questions as you have been asking until now.

However, on whether specific external organisations have been part of the sift process, if one wants to call it that, I defer to colleagues.

That is a very good question and we have to get the best possible answer to how we work our way through what is a new situation. I think that committee members understand that we are now dealing with a fundamentally different approach to retained EU law than we were dealing with even a few short weeks ago. It would be fair to say that we are going to have to satisfy ourselves that the processes meet the new circumstances that we find ourselves in. I would most certainly be happy to update the committee on how we propose to do that.

As you will have noticed from Greig Walker’s title of retained EU law management programme lead, an area of the Scottish Government is looking at that area in great detail across the piece. It is correct to say that some areas of ministerial responsibility have a much bigger focus on the issue, just because the corpus of European Union law is much more extensive in the areas of the environment, agriculture, fisheries and so on than in some other policy areas. How we will take this through the various directorates of the Scottish Government is definitely something that we will have to be focused on as we get greater clarity.

It goes without stressing at great length that we are talking about legislation that has been fundamentally changed during its course through the parliamentary process at Westminster and has not yet been finalised. We are absolutely aware that we are going to have to react to that legislation in its final form. It is going to be a serious administrative challenge. We are going to have to build in appropriate mechanisms for the reasons that Mark Ruskell has outlined, to make sure that there is co-ordination between Government ministers. As I have said during this evidence session, the important role of the Parliament is then in understanding the process.

We are, of course, not talking about the introduction of new legislation in the sense of novel legal requirements. We are talking about the maintenance of existing European Union law, but Mark Ruskell is absolutely right to point to the mechanism by which we can ensure that Government goes through what will be a new process to ensure that we retain the laws and safeguards that we wish because we want to remain aligned and, as a consequence, how we are best able to integrate that process into the wider parliamentary programme and, in particular, the committee’s role in scrutinising my work and that of colleagues in this policy area.

First, welcome to the committee, Mr Bibby. You might not be aware but, in previous evidence sessions, I have said to the committee—and I am happy to say again today—that I am open to ensuring that we have the best reporting requirements that are commensurate with proposals that the Government is dealing with. Having sat for 10 years on the European Scrutiny Committee, I understand the importance of the work and want your committee to be able to fulfil its obligations.

What is important from my point of view is that we are in the process of updating our approach of reporting to the committee in relation to European Union alignment. The two things—retained EU law and European Union alignment—are areas in which we can integrate the process.

As has been the case until now, I am still perfectly content for committee officials and Scottish Government officials to work together on how we can do that best, because I totally appreciate the needs, interests, concerns and expectations of committee members, and I understand that they want to have the most up-to-date information that they can about such issues.

This is a work in progress, and I am perfectly content to have suggestions from Mr Bibby, any other committee member or the committee as a whole about how we can best update you.

It has been unhelpful to have a cliff edge in relation to Covid support funding. Given that everybody has been focused on trying to recover, bounce back and deal with the diminution of reserves that were spent before and during the Covid pandemic, the substantial ending of funding has been problematic. That was pointed out to the UK Government. There has been some intervention in relation to energy costs, but, again, that is coming to an end, although bills remain extremely high.

It is a matter of concern that, when we have all those pressures, the funding decisions endanger the ability of cultural and arts organisations to genuinely bounce back, because, as we have discussed at the committee, public behaviour, among other things, has not immediately snapped back to pre-Covid levels. Although we are seeing good returns from different venues in Scotland, including museums, we are still not back to where we were before.

We have not seen the economic recovery or the return of the public yet—we are encouraging that to happen as quickly as possible—but we have gone from Covid pandemic circumstances to the ending of funding before a recovery has taken place. That endangers the recovery, so it is problematic.

Good morning, convener, and thank you for the opportunity to make some opening remarks. I think that we all agree that the Scottish Government’s budget for 2023-24, which was published on 15 December last year, takes place in the most turbulent of economic and financial contexts that most of us can remember.

As the Deputy First Minister set out in his introduction to the Scottish Government’s budget, the cumulative effect of war in Europe, surging energy prices, raging inflation and damage to labour supply and trade due to Brexit, along with the United Kingdom Government’s spectacular financial mismanagement, creates the most difficult set of conditions in which to set a budget.

I must stress that our ability to respond to the cost process is limited by the inactivity of the UK Government and the financial restrictions of devolution. Our budget is largely fixed, our reserves funding is fully utilised and we have no ability to borrow to increase our day-to-day spending.

Since I last appeared before the committee, we have continued to work with the culture sector to identify barriers to immediate and long-term recovery. The Scottish Government has now convened hybrid round-table meetings with the culture sector in Glasgow, Inverness and, yesterday, Dumfries. In addition, we convened a round-table meeting last November with culture sector public bodies. Those meetings have helped to explore ways in which organisations can best work together to develop shared solutions.

I want to reassure the committee that we have been listening to the intelligence that the sector has provided at those meetings and that we will continue to do everything in our powers and resources to help those who are most affected by the economic crisis.

The 2023-24 budget required us to make extremely hard decisions and to prioritise spending. As I said in my response to this committee’s report on culture funding, we will invest £278 million in Scotland’s culture and heritage sector next year. That will include continued investment in Scotland’s screen industry, with £9.25 million for Screen Scotland, and investment of £72.7 million for Historic Environment Scotland to ensure that it can continue to care for our heritage in communities across Scotland.

We are providing an additional £2.1 million to support increased costs in the national collections. We are also committed to maintaining spend in other areas of the culture budget, including museums, public libraries, the national performing companies, youth music and community-based culture.

Those commitments have required hard choices to be made. Over the past five years, we have provided Creative Scotland with more than £33 million as an additional element of funding in response to a downward trend in arts funding from the National Lottery Community Fund. At a time when we face incredibly difficult decisions about Government funding and with Creative Scotland able to draw on its accumulated lottery reserves, we have discontinued that element of funding. I am grateful that the Creative Scotland board took the decision on 19 December to use lottery reserves to guarantee to its regularly funded organisations that their funding will remain the same for the next financial year.

I know that the committee has concentrated on the culture budget in its pre-budget discussions, but I am also happy to answer questions on other areas of my portfolio, and I will touch briefly on external affairs and the referendum budget.

For external affairs aspects, international engagement continues to be essential to successful delivery of “Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation” and our net zero transition. We are committed to being a good global citizen and to playing our part in tackling global challenges, including Covid-19, climate change, poverty, injustice and inequality, particularly through our international development fund. This budget continues to support that important work.

One of the key priorities for 2023, to which additional funding has been allocated, will be the delivery of the new talent attraction and migration service, which will bring together and expand services for employers and individuals. The service will help employers to use the immigration system to meet their skills and labour needs. It will provide good-quality information and advice to people who are thinking of moving to Scotland or who have just moved here. Scotland must be able to attract people from all over the world to work and study without excessive barriers, and migration policy should support mobility, collaboration and innovation.

On referendum costs, to help our most vulnerable citizens, we intend to utilise the finance that had been earmarked for a referendum on independence—£20 million—to make provision to extend our fuel insecurity fund into next year. I stand open to any questions.

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.

Yes. That is constantly being worked on by culture officials, including in discussions with other parts of the Scottish Government.

There has been significant budgetary instability, if I can call it that, given the events of the past year. In particular, there has been tremendous budgetary instability in the UK Government. Given the constraints on us, and given that instability, one must make sure that, if and when one moves to multi-annual funding rounds, people can depend on the projections of their funding situation.

Given that instability and those constraints, it is understandable that more work needs to be done in that area, because, for the people who have been mentioned already and for many others, it is going to be a very important development—for the better, I hope. As I am sure that you have heard in evidence, many people who run extremely effective and efficient organisations have to spend what they view as a disproportionate amount of their time every year making funding applications and considering how to maintain their organisations. We understand that.

However, it would not be responsible to change from the current funding model to a new one until we can say with absolute confidence how that will work and what it will provide, and give people the certainty that they want. I want Mr Cameron to understand that we are committed to doing that. As soon as we are able, I will be happy to update the committee on how we will do it.

I am extremely keen to give the sector the assurances that, understandably, it has asked for, so that it can focus more on what it is supposed to do—delivering for our national cultural life—and perhaps spend less time on the annual cycle of financial applications and reviews.

I can speak more about the world cycling championships than I can about the athletics ones, but I will ensure that we update Mr Ruskell—who, if memory serves me correctly, asked a question about them at a previous committee meeting. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that the Scottish Government is making significant financial contributions to the world cycling championships.

For those who are not aware of that event, I note that it will take place in Scotland. This is the first time that there has been an event of its kind. It will bring together the disciplines that exist in cycling as a sport, which will take place at the same time in different venues in different parts of Scotland. The event is going to be larger than the Commonwealth games, which is amazing. It will happen this year, and a lot of thought and effort are going into ensuring that there will be genuine community benefit and societal impact in encouraging people to get on their bikes. I confess to the committee that I may need to follow that injunction a little bit more myself.

I chair the board that brings everything together, so I am closely involved in the event and I appreciate how big it is. Anything that can be done to magnify and support the understanding of it as an event that is taking place in Scotland would be much appreciated.

With regard to the specifics of the athletics event, I am joined by Rachael McKechnie, who works for the Scottish Government on the events side of things, and she may want to add to my comments. I am happy to write to Mr Ruskell. I appreciate that has made a point about why, if it is a GB event, the Scottish Government might be carrying substantial costs. I will update him on the situation in that regard.

We are involved in sporting events with the UK Government in other contexts. For example, the Euro 2028 bid, together with other home nations, is an area in which we are working with the Governments in London, Cardiff, Belfast and Dublin, and I think that we are making progress there.