Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

I would like to ask James Hampson about the same area.

The British Council’s report “Gauging International Perceptions: Scotland and Soft Power” talks about Scotland’s soft power and points to research comparing nine significant global geographies that shows Scotland to be first in the categories of education, enterprise and digital and second in the category of culture. What more do we need to do to capture those benefits? What opportunities need to be developed for exchange opportunities not only at a higher and further education level, but at a school level?

Those points are well made.

On the academic side, I presume that, from the point of view of research and strengthening international relationships, lecturer exchanges are also beneficial for our further and higher education systems.

Is that analysis available to us? We are keen to see how that kicks across different areas of Government. I was going to ask you about support for Scottish producers in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol and the impact of the internal market but, having listened to your previous answer, I guess that you would say that a different minister would respond to that question.

In relation to institutional structures, are there recommendations in the House of Lords Constitution Committee report on the constitution that came out last week that would be useful for our committee to look at? There is an issue about the structure and there have always been issues with individual ministers. There is also an issue about the processes and ensuring that you and your colleagues have the structures as part of the common frameworks, as we have talked about before, so that the issues can be monitored and so that we can get parliamentary accountability on them.

That is actually quite important for accountability. In fact, we have talked about, for example, having a traffic-light system for common frameworks. It would be useful if we could get that kind of cross-governmental feedback, because, after all, you have had questions from colleagues about the monitoring of the 2020 act and its impact on devolved issues such as agriculture, environmental standards—which is a recent matter—and so on. There is also the impact on Barnett consequentials to take into account. These things need to be properly processed, and the committee is interested in that, given the fact that, like you, we take a cross-governmental overview. We would certainly be very keen to monitor that.

I had to smile when you talked about “thin gruel” in relation to UK consequentials. It is a brilliant analogy that could be applied to how our local government colleagues sometimes feel about the Scottish Government. We need intergovernmental awareness at all levels of government, and I am very keen to get some feedback and cross-governmental analysis on this matter, as it would be useful to the committee’s work.

I would like to ask a couple of questions of the cabinet secretary. The answers to colleagues’ questions have been very interesting. In the light of the experiences with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, could the cabinet secretary outline his priorities for intergovernmental work? There is clearly an issue across portfolios. You talked about the transparency that we asked about in previous discussions with you regarding the common frameworks. What would be your short-term priority—I am not talking about fixing everything—in expecting a different approach on the issues, both from UK Government ministers and in civil service relations, so that the problems that you have identified can be aired and acted on?

In relation to institutional memory and cross-departmental working, you said that John Swinney as Deputy First Minister is in charge of intergovernmental relations and Kate Forbes is in charge of telling us whether there are implications for Barnett consequentials. That suggests that there is a need for cross-Scottish Government working as well as cross-UK Government working.

With regard to health prescribing in particular, there is innovation in the rest of the UK from which we could definitely learn, which would not only retain people in the sector, but make the impact in communities that we all want. There is an appetite to hear more about that, and about looking for innovation.

I would be interested in that offer of follow-up of information that you have just given me regarding culture in communities. One of the really striking things—following on from Mark Ruskell’s point—is that culture is not a requirement, yet it is critical to people’s health and wellbeing and to our communities. Having the funding available at local level is critical. We have taken evidence on that before in the committee, and the benefits to people are critical, as I say.

I return to the point about health prescribing. Some very good evidence has been presented to us directly. Representatives of Art in Healthcare came to the Parliament before Christmas, and work was done in different communities to support people through the pandemic. As we recover, that work will need to continue. It is not a matter of ticking a box and moving on. Community projects have helped to employ artists and other people in the cultural sector, and they have critically supported communities. How do we increase that?

We are living in an era when inflation is rocketing. How do we support people to afford to access culture? I saw an excellent paper from Scottish Opera showing what it is doing in touring around the country. The Edinburgh Festival Fringe Society is attempting to encourage people to get into the festival and is trying to take the festival fringe out to them. Affordability will be an absolutely massive issue for culture.

In practical terms, what will be available for community groups and councils to ensure that the venues are there and so that we can see those activities happening?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to focus on the challenge of recovery, which you have mentioned a couple of times, and the importance of enabling people to access culture, which is necessary to health and wellbeing and as part of who we are. As you mentioned in your opening remarks, one of the challenges of recovery was not being able to have events at Christmas and Hogmanay, which for many venues and cultural organisations are a key income generator. Can you say a bit more about that and, in particular, the issue of retaining people in the sector? In my case work, I have heard from people who have left the sector either because they cannot afford the bills or because of the uncertain nature of funding.

I want to link that to the community side of funding. We heard some really good examples at last night’s cross-party group on culture and communities of individual projects employing people locally in the cultural sector and giving them much more certainty in relation to income generation. What are your initial thoughts on retaining people in the sector and changing the way that people work to give them the opportunity of more work in communities? How can we bring that about?