Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks very much for your contributions so far.

I was interested to hear what Joël Reland had to say about the administrative bandwidth constraints on political ambitions. However, I think that it is also true, certainly in my experience, that politics drives those things. On the idea that the EU is a rules-based institution that slavishly follows the rules—we were discussing animal feeds and so on—Brexit happened and blew all that away.

On the accession of an independent Scotland, it will be politics that drives it, not any rules. Ukraine has climbed up the league table very quickly to accession status, which is a response to the politics rather than to anything else. Could you say a bit more about that?

Neil Bibby quite rightly asked about a Trump presidency. It would be interesting to know whether a future UK Government would stick with a Trump presidency that was encouraging Russia to attack a European state. Would the UK Government be driven to work more closely with Europe?

I will mention two other things. First, in relation to the European Parliament elections, can you see anything on the political horizon that might make it more difficult to effect changes to the TCA—for example, a particular party in any country having a very strong view on something that might impact on the TCA? I know that that will require a little bit of crystal-ball gazing.

The second matter relates to defence and security. Again, are there things in that respect that might happen that would have a substantial impact? It is obviously difficult to say how things in the middle east or further developments in Ukraine will play out in relation to the EU’s response. Can you see on the horizon any defence and security developments that might impact on the ability to change the terms of the TCA in relation to the interests of one or more of the 27 member states? That is for Joël Reland, first.

Mr Barker said that you, rather than Government or anyone else, would be aware of points of divergence. Is there any point of divergence on which you have made representations to the Scottish Government and that the Government would be able to address?

I appreciate the huge breadth of the issue and that, even if you do nothing at all, you will diverge, because of the reasons already mentioned. Is there any obvious point of divergence that has caused you concern, that you have made representations on and that might be within the gift of the Scottish Government to address?

I apologise for being late, convener, and I apologise to the panel as well. Even from the part of the meeting that I have listened to, the situation seems disastrous, to be honest. Continual issues of guidance and regulation make for a very hard environment to work in.

However, to stick with EU departure and the TCA, I have two points. First, you mentioned that the lack of any kind of formal monitoring of divergence by the UK Government was crucial. The committee tries to carry out such monitoring, and the Scottish Government is committed to doing that, too. Are those commitments irrelevant? Does the UK have to do that monitoring, because of the relationship with the EU?

Secondly, on the point that you made about uncertainty, I think that most people never saw Brexit coming—not far in advance, anyway—and I predict that most people will not see what will happen next. Things may change very quickly. For example, would going back into the single market change things? It would be disruptive, of course, as a further change, but would it eliminate some of the current problems, or is full EU membership required in order to effect such a change?

Those are my two questions. The first is, is there value to your organisations in committee and Scottish Government monitoring of divergence and the attempt on the part of the Scottish Government to limit divergence, or does it have to be the UK that monitors that? The second is, what might the effect be of going into the single market?

I do not know as much about this as I would like to know, but, from the opening comments, it seems that the big question is about where we go from here. If there is no pre-made plan based on ideology or whatever else for where we should go, surely we should take a pragmatic approach by thinking about how things that are not currently working could work better. Irene Oldfather made the point that the situation is likely to change over the course of the year, but surely it is about trying to deal with the pressure points and friction points. That is my suggestion.

It has been quite heartening but also surprising to hear that people are fairly sanguine and are working through solutions. That is good to know but, because we have some big players around the table, it is surprising to hear what is quite discordant.

I was contacted this week by a small firm in Kintyre whose business has been decimated because it cannot export its cooked fish products. The difference between the big players—who know how to get around Government and legitimately prosecute their interests—and the vast majority of businesses, which are small and medium-sized enterprises, is stark.

Irene Oldfather mentioned that when she spoke about SMEs. Have you listened to such businesses and do you have feedback from them? As best I can gather—I think that most MSPs have heard about it—their experience is quite different. We read in the media—that does not necessarily mean that it is true—that there are major issues because of the impact on small businesses. How can they work their way through the TCA? For small businesses, that can be a huge challenge.

I agree with what Agnes Tolmie said. Back in the mists of time, I did an exchange course as a student. It was outwith the EU, but I gained a huge amount from it.

Tom Sallis made points about the WTO being a way to influence the EU indirectly and, earlier, about South Korea and the Asia-Pacific region. The other side of this is the absence of trade agreements between the UK and countries around the world. One or two have been signed, but people say that the New Zealand one is pretty disastrous. Previously, of course, we would have been included under EU trade agreements. What has been the impact of the absence of trade agreements? Has there been any impact on exports, trade or other matters?

If it is the case that there are opportunities that can be exploited, we are years since Brexit and that has not been realised. We have not done a deal with the big ones, such as the US and Canada, and I am much less optimistic about India than Mr Sallis is, to be honest: Modi has made it fairly clear that we will not do a deal any time soon. We miss more opportunities the longer this goes on; if they exist, we are missing out. We were told deals would happen very quickly. That is my concern.

I will make one last point. The table that we have says that the spend as a percentage of the licence fee collected is 86 per cent. You referred to that figure. You also mentioned the fixed costs for nation-based organisations, about which the committee heard previously when it asked about Wales. If the nations are smaller, the spend gets to be larger. Given that there is a premium, if you like, to deliver services in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, the 86 per cent figure seems quite small. It is less than 100 per cent of the licence fee collected and includes the premium that you have to pay. Is that a matter of concern and are you looking to address it?

I understand what the cabinet secretary is saying but, from my point of view, the idea of trust, consistency and honesty on the part of Creative Scotland is an issue.

My second point relates to the cabinet secretary’s point about new sources of finance. I raised the issue of innovation, which I have not seen much evidence of, except for the V&A in Dundee. I was assured that it would get back in touch with ideas, and some of those have come back in, to be fair—I have yet to read them.

I know that time is very short so, rather than ask a question about that, I will very cheekily ask the question that I asked the BBC earlier. Does the Scottish Government support the allocation of the status of crown jewels to the carrying of live Scottish national football matches in Scotland?

I expect that it is, but, for the committee, in trying to come to an idea about the fairness of the apportionment of funds, it is an important figure. If it is not possible for you to give it just now, it would be useful to have it subsequently.

In my experience, there has never been a time when there has been such widespread concern about the output of the BBC and other broadcasters. Increasing numbers of people, including young people, are not paying their licence fee. It is not just young people—I am thinking about my mum. That is bound to have an impact. Part of the issue is related to what those people perceive to be the nature of the BBC’s current affairs output. This week, we have seen reference to the fact that the BBC’s “The Nine” programme could have as few as 200 viewers. I do not know whether that is true, but it has certainly been reported on social media. There are real concerns about that. In recent times, the director general of the BBC attended a meeting of Conservative MPs at Westminster. Can we, in this Parliament, expect a similar kind of courtesy from the director general? Is it possible to have direct communication with him to raise some of those concerns?