Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for your first observation, which is helpful. It is possible to scrutinise things that are not fully resolved, and it is not unhelpful for the Government to try to make significant progress with such measures before bringing them to Parliament. I am sure that you appreciate that.

On the issue of intergovernmental relationships, I will again start off with the best of intentions and say that there are areas in which it is possible to deliver further progress. I raised the issue of frameworks, which would be a good thing on which to make progress, notwithstanding that there are genuine and legitimate differences between the Government that has been elected in Scotland and the Government that has been elected elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

I will share a few other matters that I think would be worthy of consideration by the committee. First, the fairer dispute resolution process, which could, for the first time, involve the principle that no Government can be both party to and arbiter of a dispute, would be a good thing. There is the question whether there should be an independent secretariat drawn from the four Governments, which would oversee machinery and dispute resolution processes. I think that that would also be a good thing.

There are emerging proposals from the Treasury that would make four-nation discussions more equitable, but there is the outstanding issue about whether the Treasury, which, in normal circumstances, would be unlikely to relinquish control of the oversight of financial disputes, would need to do so because, as part of the UK Government, it is party to many of them.

The fourth area in which there are revised proposals—which you might want to understand more about, and which would improve current processes—involves having more transparent arrangements for formal intergovernmental meetings. The arrangements would involve shared responsibility for agenda setting and chairing meetings, rather than our receiving a fax that sets out what we are talking about, when the meeting is happening and who is taking part, which has all been decided by the UK Government. That is not a normal way of doing business.

In answering the question, I stress that there are areas in which we can make progress and areas in which things could be agreed if there was goodwill on all sides. I acknowledge that there comes a point when the seriously differing views of the UK Government and the Scottish Government are irresolvable. However, surely all of us on the committee, in the Government and in the Parliament serve on the basis of a devolved settlement that was voted for by the people of this country. Therefore, it behoves us to protect, maintain and support the governance of this country on the basis that that is what the people agreed to.

No doubt we will have differences about what happens next. In 2014, we were invited to say “no thanks” and remain in the United Kingdom, which was part of the European Union, but the material circumstances of that choice have subsequently changed, and the issue will be debated in full. I stress that there are areas in which we can make progress, and I genuinely hope that we can do so, but it will take a shift in either mindset or policy.

First, I should say that I am very mindful of the time, and I am sure that there are committee members who are keen to ask some questions about culture, as well.

To give a very quick answer, both of the proposed Scottish Government hubs would be established on an on-platform basis in the UK embassies, simply because proximity can result in very direct co-ordination with UK embassy colleagues. There are other advantages in following a different model, but that is a concrete response to the specific case that you have asked about. I could talk at greater length about how we co-ordinate, and I want to do so.

Incidentally, though, it is a two-way street. It would be great to hear what the UK Government is doing in a whole series of circumstances that impact on us and this committee’s work. Unfortunately, we do not hear about any of that. It would be good if that were to happen.

I am not a great gamer in the sense of “Grand Theft Auto”. Forgive me, I was answering the question on the basis of gaming financially, as opposed to the online version.

I mentioned “Grand Theft Auto”, but I think that most people in Scotland are unaware of how groundbreaking game development in Scotland has been. It is not only about “Grand Theft Auto”, but if people do not know just how big and groundbreaking that game is, they should go and have a look. It might not be all our thing, so to speak, but it is a thing for a lot of people around the world. We have a great tradition in that area, particularly in Dundee but elsewhere too.

In parallel, we also have some very interesting developments in the tech sector in Scotland. The tech and games sectors are related, because we have a huge opportunity—as well as a challenge—with regard to helping to give enough people, particularly younger people, the skills, training and expertise to walk into those emerging sectors, and ensuring that the maximum number of people here are able to take up such jobs. That is still an open question. There are some countries for which computer science is absolutely up there as a priority—the good news is that it is for the Scottish Government, too—and we need to ensure that we match those organisations that have a big tech locus.

There is an aspiration for Edinburgh to become the data hub of the whole of Europe, and there is a huge artificial intelligence sector developing in Edinburgh, too. That should be hugely encouraging for a young generation of people for whom computing, gaming, tech and AI are interesting. Although some of those sectors fall into the education or economic development spheres of the Government’s work, they also fall in part into culture. We need to understand that many of them are extremely relevant; as such, they are also on my long list of things that are relevant for me and my colleagues.

Again, that is a subject that we could spend a whole session talking about.

Let us deal with the tangible. For those who are unaware, I represented a rural constituency for 16 years, so the issues that you raise are not foreign to me. The successes in that part of the world—I am talking about Moray—are at the forefront of my thoughts. We are not talking only about there being a cultural offering in cities, with nothing in rural areas—far from it. There is a strong tradition of a touring element among our artistic community and our cultural organisations. Those whose memories are long enough will remember “The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil”, which was a cultural production that travelled round all the villages and towns of Scotland.

I cannot do that question justice in the time that we have. I am absolutely seized of that, not only because of Covid. We have a great opportunity to showcase our cultural offering, especially with the 75th anniversary of the Edinburgh international festival next year. It was founded by an exiled Austrian Jew, Rudolf Bing. I was discussing that with the Austrian ambassador yesterday to try to ensure that we can maintain the festival’s connection to the country of his birth.

How do we help, support and work with our cultural organisations and our venues to ensure that they are in the best possible position to take part in the recovery? Ms Boyack will be aware that there have been announcements about certain venues. For example, during recess, a significant funding announcement was made by the Scottish Government about the King’s theatre in Edinburgh. We are committed to supporting the cultural sector and venues as they bounce back.

We frequently have discussions with people in the cultural sector. We are very well informed about the needs, interests, concerns and expectations of people in the sector. We want to be able to match their ambitions as part of the recovery of the arts and culture sector. If it is not obvious to members, a look at the statistics will confirm that the impact that the lockdown had on the arts and culture sector was among the worst in the Scottish economy. It behoves us to do everything that we can. There are constraints, but we should do as much as we can to work with our colleagues in the sector. We are doing that.

The sad reality is that we are dealing with a global pandemic. We are doing our level best to ensure that we do not have to go back into restrictions. I am happy to tell the committee that I took part in a meeting yesterday with the Deputy First Minister and representatives from different sectors. Some of the first people who spoke in that meeting were leading members of the cultural community and people who manage venues. They very much buy into the approach that we are trying to take, which is to do all that we can to ensure that we do not have to go backwards into restrictions. By working in partnership, we can increase the chances of being able to recover from Covid and of seeing the cultural sector not only recovering but thriving.

I will leave you with a final thought. I am personally interested in Scotland’s cultural offering internationally. Most countries pursue that through a cultural diplomacy framework. I will be developing my thoughts about that during this session of Parliament and will be happy to return to the committee to speak about that. We have a tremendous offering, not only domestically but internationally. We want to do all that we can to support that in the years ahead.

I look forward to coming back.

One of the advantages, if I can call it that, of having had an election shortly before a recess is that, as a Government minister—I am learning this as we go along—I could use that recess time to bed into the job. There is a sort of golden hour for reaching out and speaking with people. I have been doing that on a number of different levels. In the first instance, I have been speaking to the consular corps—the diplomatic corps—in Scotland. You will be aware that a wide range of countries have consulates in Scotland, largely in Edinburgh, and I and Scottish Government colleagues have been meeting consuls general—and, on occasion, diplomats from London embassies—about developments in Scotland and also specifically in relation to consular questions. We may come on to this, but that has included the impact that Brexit is having on other countries’ citizens and on people from here in their countries.

There has been very good engagement with the consular corps in general. Specifically, I have met face to face and in person with the consuls general of the United States of America, Germany, France, Japan, Ireland and Austria, and with the rest on Teams calls. I have also been engaging with the diplomatic community in London. Visits are beginning to take place. Looking back in my diary, in recent weeks I have met in person with the ambassador of Slovenia. His country, which I think is comparable in size to Wales, is a very important country, because it currently has the presidency of the European Union, so I was very pleased to meet him in person. I have met the ambassadors of Finland and Austria. I have met the Indian high commissioner, and I have spoken via Teams with a number of others.

On Europe, I have met or been in communication with, among others, the German permanent representative to the European Union; the Irish permanent representative to the European Union; David McAllister, who is the chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs; and MEPs from across all the mainstream political families in the European Parliament. You will be aware that there is a friends of Scotland group in the European Parliament. That is just—I say “just”—the outreach that I have been engaged in during recess with the diplomatic community here, in London and in Europe.

Further afield, you will know that the Scottish Government has representatives in a good number of countries around the world, and we are hoping to increase that. We have been working closely with them, too.

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.