Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Given your observation about the wide range of the committee’s remit, convener, I should say that it is probably unrealistic for us to be able to cover all the issues that you might have questions about in one hour. I therefore reiterate that I look forward to coming back to the committee, and, in the meantime, I hope that we can inform the committee about any queries that you might have through letters.

By way of an update on the status of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, the legislation has been in force since 1 January 2021, and Scottish Government officials are engaging across a number of related fronts on a factual basis and without prejudice to ministers’ fundamental opposition to it. The Scottish Government is seeing a wide range of impacts on policy and on public investment, and the frameworks team can supply further detail on request, if the committee wants a bit more information on that, relating to examples of known and emerging risks to devolved decision making, and on technical aspects of the 2020 act’s operation.

The Scottish Government’s concerns have been shared with the UK Government, and we have been working in conjunction with colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland. The views that I am expressing today, and which the Scottish Government is expressing, are shared by the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. This will be a really big issue throughout this parliamentary session, and we will no doubt come back to it again and again.

In the precisely two and a half minutes that I have to answer that question—

I suspect that the gaming sector is the area that I will have to write back to the convener about after the evidence session. I can speak generally. This is not gaming in the sense of betting, although there is a lottery in the locus because the headquarters of the People’s Postcode Lottery is in Edinburgh Central. That impacts significantly on the culture and charity sector. I may have come to this by a circuitous route, but it is relevant to the committee and to me as a minister and as an MSP. I was previously unaware of it because I am not a gambler and do not buy lottery tickets; you may be experts, but I am not. The lottery is a charitable organisation and the numbers are extremely significant. The lottery is very forward leaning in its work with charities, especially in the cultural sector. It works on a grass-roots level and is also supportive of larger cultural organisations.

Some aspects of lottery governance come under devolved legislation and some relate to reserved legislation. The committee might look more closely at that to see whether it is relevant. There are unresolved governance issues that affect that Edinburgh-based lottery and its ability to grow and to continue to support charities and cultural organisations. The committee might want to have a look at that.

I am so sorry—

Access to culture is another subject that could have an evidence session all of its own, and a number of obvious areas around culture and access to culture should be high on our priority list.

For the sake of argument—because we are sitting here—let us take the example of festivals in Edinburgh. The Edinburgh festival fringe and certain venues have tried to make sure that, in particular, younger people from deprived backgrounds in more socially challenged parts of the city feel that cultural life, such as festivals, includes them and their part of Edinburgh and is not just something that happens “over there”. There is a long track record of that work, which goes back to the Craigmillar festival, for example. That subject is hugely important to me; I have discussed it with people who have been running festivals in Edinburgh and, in fairness to them, it is also a big priority for them. We must do everything that we can to foster better cultural access on that level and make sure that it is a year-round experience and not just a matter of saying, “Oh, the festivals are in August—let’s arrange for buses for kids from this primary school to go to the performance of that particular event.” Good though that might be, we have to ensure that cultural opportunity is an all-year-round experience and that it is mainstream to learning.

I do not know where to start with the observation about Scottish literature. Imagine living in a country where it is abnormal to learn about the literature of your own country. It seems preposterous that that would be the case anywhere but, more specifically, it seems absurd for that to be the case in this country, although things are changing. I think that I am right in saying that a previous schools minister had particularly strong views on that and made efforts to ensure that at least one piece of Scottish literature was taught as part of the higher programme. Sorry—I am being elliptical. For those who are reading the Official Report and not seeing our proceedings, I am looking directly at Dr Allan, who was that schools minister. We have to do better and, incidentally, we also have to do better in teaching our history, which should go without saying.

There are a number of points to make about access to culture. I am committed to it, as is the Scottish Government, and I have given examples of how we make sure that everybody has access to culture, but the gamut goes much further than that. We need to help introduce everybody to the amazing culture that we have on our doorstep. One person’s idea of culture is not shared by everybody and we have to realise that, for some people, it includes online games, as was mentioned in an earlier question. There is a cultural dimension to gaming and I will not be snooty about it. Similarly, we are lucky that the cultural offering in this country runs the full gamut from the high arts to the alternative and traditional Scottish sectors. Everybody should have an introduction to that offering, so that they can have an appreciation of it and, on the basis of having been exposed to it, choose what they have a personal interest in. The idea that we are a country that does not teach our literature or has a lack of awareness of our history should be consigned to the history books.

I will add a supplementary thought to all that, given what is going on at present and the debate in Parliament this afternoon on Afghanistan. It is important that people who come to this country have the opportunity to learn about the culture, history and society that they will now share. That is a priority for me and for the organisations that work in that field, such as the Scottish Refugee Council and a variety of non-governmental and Afghan Scots community organisations. We need to be imaginative about how we help the people who come to these shores in our schools and through our cultural organisations. As we know, they can become hyphenated Scots if they want to be, as soon as they want to be. Everybody should have access to culture.

Indeed—including those in Argyll and Bute. In its way, that production was groundbreaking in showing that there was a hunger throughout the country for a cultural offering. The great news is that there is such an offering across the spectrum, from organisations such as Scottish Opera and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra, and I could go on, but from more alternative organisations such as Neu! Reekie!, which normally performs in Edinburgh but which performs in other parts of the country, too—I have seen it perform in Elgin.

That work needs to be supported, and the good news is that, as part of its first 100 days in office, the Scottish Government is delivering on the touring fund, which is not to be confused with the Turing fund—the UK Government’s anaemic replacement fund for the Erasmus+ programme. The Scottish Government’s fund relates to touring in the sense of travelling around the country, as opposed to the esteemed scientist Turing. As well as making sure that cultural organisations and individual performers can access funds to tour around Scotland, which is a good thing, we are ensuring that museums and galleries are lending their collections—whether of works of art or historical items—to different parts of the country, because that needs to be supported.

Staycations are great not just for bouncing back from Covid but in enabling people to get out of cities and to go to different parts of Scotland. It has been so nice to see people who, in other circumstances, would almost certainly not have gone to where they have gone on a staycation. Through that, they have learned about other parts of the country and what they have to offer. I know that communities right around the country are doing their best to make sure that people who visit have a good cultural offering and a good cultural experience, rather than just going somewhere to do, say, paddle boarding.

Turning to Gaelic, I declare an interest: I am not a Gaelic speaker, but I have the good fortune to have a second language, and I know that having a second language—whichever language that is—is transformational for people. It opens up another world. Therefore, I am a huge supporter of people being able to learn other languages.

We do not have enough time today to discuss the historic role of Gaelic as a language of this country. Our past relationship with that language leaves much to be desired. We are dealing with the results of that. The number of people speaking Gaelic as a first language has reduced to an all-time low. The good news, as we know, is that the number of pupils in Gaelic-medium schools is rising. They are among the most popular schools in the country. I can attest to that in Edinburgh, where parents from non-Gaelic speaking—and even non-English speaking—families are very keen for their kids to go there, That is because of the educational benefits of being able to speak another language and also because of the cultural inheritance.

I am a massive supporter of the language. The Scottish Government has a role to play in the cultural offering. That may be in education. That is not my responsibility, but I know that my colleagues who are responsible for education are supportive of that. Broadcasting is part of my area. Gaelic is also important there and much more can be done. It is encouraging that a number of regular viewers of BBC Alba are non-Gaelic speakers. You could call it a gateway broadcaster for people whose first interest might be in watching football but who watch and enjoy the commentary in Gaelic, which might help to foster an interest in the language.

I hope that answers your question. There is much that we can do. We can connect that to my responsibility for external affairs. I do not know whether it has struck members of the committee, but the number of people who are learning Gaelic and are not even from Scotland is remarkable. The committee may not be aware of this, but one of Scotland’s leading Gaelic language newsreaders is not from Scotland—he is German.