Seòmar agus comataidhean

I reviewed some of the figures before I came to the meeting. I observed that, in general terms, cultural spending by local authorities has remained in place, which is positive. I commend people who work in local government, because they have a great deal of demand on their budgets.

There is always an opportunity for partnership working. However, I would put down one marker in the conversation, having said to Mr Golden that it is not for the Scottish Government to do culture. Instead, we support culture, and we help cultural organisations that are much closer to the front line. That arm’s-length separation is there for a reason. I am sure that Mr Golden would be the first to tell me that it would not be a good idea for local government to be directed or to remove its ability to set budget priorities and make budget decisions.

He talked about publishing a report and having an understanding of what is being done, and there is definitely something in that. Of course, we answer questions in the usual way about information that the Scottish Government holds. I need to defer to colleagues on the degree of understanding that we have on a council level. That would be answered through partnership working and working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and I think that that would be hugely valuable. I am sure that a lot of that happens at present. Do colleagues want to add anything on that point?

The last word.

I will have to defer to David Seers on that question. We are keen to make the three-year funding approach workable. I ask David to comment on the detail of that.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to you all, including Sarah Boyack, who is joining us remotely. Convener, I also thank you for this, my first taste of the pre-budget process and the opportunity to discuss the culture sector.

As the committee will be well aware from the evidence that you have seen, the Covid-19 pandemic has hit the culture sector harder than most. In July, 70 per cent of organisations in the arts, entertainment and recreation sector reported a decrease in turnover, compared with 31 per cent of businesses in the overall economy.

Since the start of the pandemic, the Scottish Government has provided £175 million to the culture, heritage and events sector. That is far more than we have received, or are still due to receive, in consequentials for cultural recovery from the United Kingdom Government. The provision of that support has been a lifeline to Scotland’s venues and organisations, in particular to the freelancers who are such a crucial part of the creative economy.

The culture sector is not alone in facing a fragile recovery; the same is true of travel and tourism, for example, with the premature end of furlough as a support from the end of last month. However, the impact of the pandemic is such that it will take some time for cultural activity to return to former levels, with the added factor of the new barriers that Brexit is causing to artists working in one of their biggest markets—the European Union.

Despite that, culture has continued to play a vital role in people’s lives during the pandemic through its positive effect on mental health and by bringing people together in different ways. We have seen an acceleration in online performances and an increase in the proportion of people, particularly among the under-45s, who engage with culture digitally.

As you heard in your earlier evidence-taking sessions, the pandemic gives us an opportunity to view things with fresh eyes and perspectives. We are preparing plans for cultural recovery and are not merely seeking to return to the status quo. As so many cultural organisations and freelancers have demonstrated during the pandemic, there will be new ways of doing things—for example, new opportunities to build world-class businesses in the screen industry, which has such potential to grow in terms of employment and skills; new opportunities to reconnect communities across Scotland using the convening power of culture and events; and new opportunities to enhance Scotland’s international profile through cultural diplomacy and exporting our best cultural products and services. Our cultural recovery plan will be at the heart of economic and social transformation to ensure that we build a fairer, greener Scotland with equal opportunities for all.

As your predecessor committee heard, the final budget in the previous session of Parliament was intended to stabilise core funding for the culture sector in the midst of the pandemic. We are now at a different stage where, with many cultural organisations not yet being out of the woods, we can nevertheless start to plan for recovery. The first budget in the new session of Parliament, for the coming financial year, will exist in the context of that transition. We have committed in the programme for government to three-year funding deals for culture organisations that are core funded by the Government in order to aid their recovery, and further decisions on that will be taken as part of the budget to be announced on 9 December.

I am sure that the committee is only too well aware of the challenging outlook for all public expenditure and the tough negotiations that I and my Cabinet colleagues will face before final budget decisions are taken. I will welcome the committee’s views on future priorities in our discussions this morning and in the letter that you will send me as a conclusion to the pre-budget process.

That is a great question. I have to be absolutely clear that, as somebody who has been in the Scottish Parliament only since May and who has been a cabinet secretary for only a few short months, I do not have personal insight into the 10-year horizon that Mr Cameron talked about. However, I spend probably more than half of my working day on Teams calls with colleagues across Government discussing how Government is joined up, and I certainly get the impression that there is a genuine effort across Government to try to make that work, whether it is in relation to the economy or elsewhere.

We are about to embark on that in the cultural sphere. I can reflect on the fact that there is a sincere effort to make that approach work in other areas. I give Mr Cameron the assurance that I am keen to ensure that it works, and he will want to be sure that it is working. Only when we can come back and he can interrogate the extent to which it is taking place will I be able to answer that question. However, I can say that my intention is to try to make it work, and perhaps bringing the insights of a relative newcomer will be helpful in that.

It bodes well that everybody who I speak to seems to think that it is a tremendously good idea. If people were not aware that there are benefits in working beyond the culture and arts silo, we would be in difficulty. The fact that people recognise the health and education benefits as well as the possible benefits for the justice system in certain settings makes me optimistic that, if we can harness the awareness and willingness to do something, we can really make that approach deliver. However, the member will need to satisfy himself that that is what will actually happen once we have launched the strategy and we are getting on with delivering it.

I again go back to the symbiotic relationship between the committee and the Government. Perhaps I am a hopelessly idealistic newcomer in this regard, but you need to know that the work that you do influences people like me and my civil service colleagues. Your considerations are important because we have different time constraints and time limitations. For example, the thoughtful approach that you were able to take recently in your focus group work was absolutely invaluable. I leave that thought with the convener and deputy convener. It is a way in which you can influence the Government and ensure that it delivers. I am keen to work with you on that as we jointly try to deliver a joined-up approach.

I would add to that, because another little yellow Post-it note for us to take away in relation to our cultural recovery and renewal strategy is about exactly the point that Mr Golden makes: co-operation. It would obviously be a good thing that, right across the Scottish Government, we think about how culture and the arts is mainstreamed in all our thinking. However, there is absolutely no reason why we would not encourage that broader understanding to also involve local authorities, which have a delivery responsibility and which, as my colleague has just pointed out, spend a significant amount of money on culture.

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.