Chamber and committees

Good morning to the panel and thank you for your report. I particularly note what you said about the contrast and the key differences between the Conservative Government’s approach and that of a potential future Labour Government to veterinary standards, mutual recognition of conformity assessments, professional qualifications, more flexible labour, mobility arrangements for short-term trips and UK association with EU programmes. I also note what you said in your report and again this morning about the significant challenges in making changes and the potential political costs. As a starting point, to what extent are those differences and that contrast understood in European capitals?

You have made the point that the EU would have to trust that future UK Governments, which could be far more Eurosceptic, will uphold such agreements. What can be done to address those concerns?

Thanks very much for that answer.

As was mentioned earlier, it is a big year for politics and elections, with a UK general election and European elections. The election in the United States has been referenced as a potential external factor that might drive changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU. We have heard about foreign security agreements and a desire from the EU to work on that as well. Do you have any thoughts on factors relating to the US election and how that could impact on foreign security issues and anything else, for that matter?

Good morning to the committee and to the minister. I will speak to my amendments 40, 41, 43, 44 and 47 to 49 in this group.

We have already heard how important Scotland’s tourism industry is to our country, and we all agree on that. I am sure that we all agree, too, on the importance of Scotland’s cultural scene, which is one of the greatest assets that our country has. It enriches the lives of people here, it sells brand Scotland overseas and it is one of the main reasons for people choosing to visit Scotland. As the minister said earlier, many people come here to visit our castles and other sites of historical significance. Other visitors travel here to see sights that they have seen on film and television or to experience, for example, concerts in Glasgow or the festival in Edinburgh. As the minister mentioned, we also have free entry to museums and galleries. We should maintain that approach. We should remember, too, that many international tourists will also visit those museums and galleries.

We are a world leader on cultural offerings, but we cannot take that for granted. As someone put it to me recently, Scotland was once the world leader when it came to shipbuilding. Just because something was once the case does not mean that it will always be so. As Mark Griffin alluded to earlier, culture and the arts require significant public subsidy from not only Government grant-in-aid funding but other sources. We must recognise the difficulties and challenges that the cultural sector in Scotland currently faces on funding, jobs, the cost of living crisis, and recovery after the pandemic. I believe that the sector’s interests must be fully and properly factored into the legislation, the implementation of the levy and the consultation on its operation, which is why I am here to speak to my amendments.

My amendments would make small changes to ensure that culture is referenced alongside tourism in key parts of the bill. Consultation will be absolutely critical to the implementation of the proposed levy. My amendments would require proper and meaningful consultation with the culture sector on that. As the minister said, they would also mean taking cognisance of local cultural strategies as well as tourism strategies.

I have spoken to many people in the cultural sector and the business tourism community who have told me that they support my amendments because they appreciate the importance of joint consultation with those industries. I therefore believe that my commonsense amendments would improve the bill in a small but significant way.

As the minister said, his amendments in the group would ensure appropriate consultation with local councils and tourism organisations. I hear what he said about provisions that include the relevant organisations, but I instinctively believe that we need culture to be specifically mentioned in the bill, to make it clear that cultural organisations in Scotland will be properly consulted and that cognisance will be taken of cultural strategies.

I will reflect on what the minister said. Although, instinctively, I do not agree with him, I will not seek to move my amendments. Instead, I will consider what the minister has said and will engage further with the culture sector and people in the tourism industry who are keen to see something being done in this area.

It is very regrettable that we are no longer part of the Erasmus+ programme. Alistair Sim and others have talked about its benefits this morning, and the points were well made. You said earlier that the UK Government looked at the costs and found them to be prohibitive. How much are the costs involved in that in terms of weighing up the costs and benefits of the policies? I apologise—I might be jumping the gun slightly, but, if there is no prospect of joining Erasmus+ in full, is there anything that stops short of that that we could potentially do that would improve the situation for universities and students in Scotland, the UK and the EU?

Thank you, convener, and good morning, Mr Wishart. I commend your committee for its report, in which you talk about the lack of a strategic big picture with regard to the UK Government’s work in relation to Scotland. You also talk about the need for co-operation and highlight the shared priorities between the Scottish and UK Governments. To what extent is the UK Government’s lack of a strategic big picture with regard to Scotland down to a lack of a strategic big picture from the UK and Scottish Governments in general?

You have talked about the important work that the UK Government is doing on defence and security—indeed, that work is really important at this time—and the Scottish Government’s important work on the diaspora. However, it is on the specific issue of economic interests and inward investment that I want to ask you about the extent to which you think that the UK Government’s lack of a strategic big picture in its work on Scotland comes from the lack of such a picture from both Governments—notwithstanding, of course, the good work that you have highlighted, and with which I would agree, on defence, security and the diaspora.

Thank you for that answer, Mr Wishart. That is helpful.

There are different strands of work. We have international work and inward investment work, we are reaching out to the diaspora, and there is cultural work as well. On inward investment and economic interests, I have heard the desire from businesses for a single point of contact to take forward inward investment plans. That can be challenging when there is not only a UK Government and a Scottish Government but, even within the Scottish Government, different agencies—there are different agencies at the UK level as well.

We want co-operation, but we also want to avoid duplication and attract as much inward investment as we can. During your inquiry, did you hear similar reflections on the need to streamline approaches and have a single point of contact to attract inward investment? Do you have any further reflections on that?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Following on from Donald Cameron’s question, I note that, last week, we heard about the need for urgency as well as clarity. Iain Munro of Creative Scotland said that the focus at the moment is

“to—literally—keep the show on the road and keep the lights on.”

He went on to say:

“Much is at risk, but in the light of the indications from the Scottish Government about the £100 million—as I said, we could spend that several times over, and we want the Government to go further and faster ... —it feels as though we are on the cusp of being able to turn a corner if there is more urgency in how that money is deployed.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 11 January 2024; c 39.]

The key phrase there is

“if there is more urgency”.

However, you have not indicated that you are going to go any further in this budget with regard to providing that urgency.

We also heard last week about the need for clarity. Up to now, we have heard that, in 2025-26, the funding will be £25 million as a minimum. However, this morning, you did not mention that the £25 million would be a minimum; you just confirmed that £25 million would be the figure in 2025-26. Can you clarify that?

The point that I was going to make is that it would have been a minimum of £40 million if it was more than £25 million.

In terms of the clarity that you are seeking to provide—and which is being called for—you have announced £100 million over the next five years. When can people expect clarity on the amount of money that will be available in 2026-27?

On the one hand, you are saying that you cannot provide clarity on multiyear budgets, but on the other hand, you have announced £100 million over five years, so there is a need for that clarity, at least for 2026-27.

If we want to sustain culture and cultural activity and participation, it is important that we ensure that the right resource—whatever that is—is in place. I am interested to know whether the Government has carried out an assessment of this budget and how it will impact jobs, venues and cultural participation and activity. I say that because the committee heard evidence last week from Fran Hegyi of the Edinburgh International Festival about the need for levels of investment to

“match the level of ambition”.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that the committee has carried out a culture in communities inquiry. Lori Anderson from Culture Counts told us that

“Since the committee conducted its pre-budget scrutiny, Community Leisure UK has conducted a survey of its membership. It reported that 60 per cent of Scottish members are facing a budget deficit”

and that

“29 per cent of members are preparing for closures”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 11 January 2024; c 19, 23.]

At a local level, we know that 83 community facilities, including dozens of libraries, have closed between 2009 and 2020 and that, for example, there has been a 16 per cent cut in funding over that period in library spend by local councils, and we know how significant that is. Earlier, you said that you want to speak with COSLA to ensure that it understands the important role that culture plays. I am sure that it is well aware of that important role, but its funding has been cut and cut and its core revenue funding is set to be cut again, by £63 million.

Therefore, in the important interests of sustaining cultural services, in addition to the national organisations sustaining their culture services under the current settlement, how do you expect councils to sustain cultural venues and keep them open, when so many are at threat of closure and when councils’ funding is being cut?

Good morning to the panel. You spoke earlier about growth online and of news online in particular. While that is welcome—that is how society is moving forward, using online and digital platforms—I have heard some concerns from local newspapers about the BBC increasingly duplicating their work covering local stories. No one is doubting that local stories will sometimes make national news, but I am talking about stories that would not otherwise be broadcast. There is concern, given that newspapers are really struggling at the moment. They are trying to secure subscriptions to boost their income and survive in what is a challenging environment and the increasing availability of free online content through the BBC is seen as a threat to their business. Do you accept that that coverage will inadvertently have an impact on local newspapers? Do you have any reflections on that?

I note that concern is expressed in the Ofcom report—to which you will say you are responding, no doubt—that viewers want to see more regional programmes. I wonder whether the balance is right there. If people want more regional content, perhaps that is about broadcast programmes, as opposed to online news content. I repeat the caveat that I made earlier, that local news will be national news on occasion, but it is a matter of getting the balance right to protect local newspapers while the BBC provides the service that you want it to provide.