Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. The focus of our budget scrutiny, as it has been throughout the parliamentary session, has been the Government’s culture portfolio spend. That approach has the benefit of building on previous working positions and gives us an opportunity to better assess progress over the years.
Through our cumulative scrutiny over three years, we have heard a consistent narrative around the on-going financial challenges. Although Covid support was welcomed and acknowledged, recovery for the sector has been a varied landscape. For example, Historic Environment Scotland experienced a fall of 80 per cent in revenue in 2020, but it is now seeing an increase in visitor numbers, and foreign visitor numbers are recovering. It caveats that, however, with a concern around the impact of cost of living and fuel bill costs on households and, indeed, the pressures on its own buildings.
We approached the budget scrutiny with three questions. How has the culture sector evolved in the past 12 years? What progress has been made in that time on accelerating innovative solutions to budgetary pressures? What are the challenges to the future of the sector and the need for a strategic approach to ensure its sustainability? The Scottish Government's culture strategy will be key to that.
A year ago, we found that the budgetary challenges that the sector was facing had become much more acute. We were contributing to a perfect storm of long-term financial pressures, reduced income generation and increased operating costs. In written evidence this financial year, Edinburgh International Festival suggested that
“The perfect storm ... has worsened in the last 12 months.”
Glasgow Life agreed that the storm
“shows little sign of abating and is perhaps deepening.”
External and public funding pressures persisted. There was the cost of living, fuel costs and the commitment to fair work. The sector remained under significant financial strain, with the risk to its future sustainability more severe. The cabinet secretary observed:
“The responses ... to the committee’s call for views ... make sombre and extremely stark reading.”—[
Official Report
,
Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee
, 5 October 2023; c 2.]
Last year, the committee concluded in its report on culture in communities that
“funding constraints within the current financial environment”
pose
“a significant challenge to the successful delivery of place-based cultural policy, including with respect to the funding of ... local government cultural services, and of publicly owned community spaces where cultural activity can take place.”
The committee recognises the current challenging economic circumstances and the urgent need to restore confidence in the culture sector as it continues to face significant pressures.
The First Minister has committed to increasing the Scottish Government’s investments in artisan culture by £100 million over the next five years. The evidence that the committee received during our pre-budget scrutiny predated that announcement. The committee did not have an opportunity to scrutinise the commitment further until well into the budget process, but the cabinet secretary provided us with more information about the commitment when he appeared before the committee two weeks ago. We have since written to the cabinet secretary to seek further detail on what the sector can expect in the years after 2025-26. As cultural bodies and stakeholders repeatedly told us, and as the cabinet secretary noted in his opening remarks to the committee on 18 January,
“there remains a need for longer-term clarity and confidence.”—[
Official Report
,
Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee
, 18 January 2024; c 30.]
Let us not underplay the importance of the creative economy to Scotland. Culture adds colour to our lives, shapes how we see ourselves and contributes to our shared sense of community and wellbeing. It plays a role in how we position ourselves globally. I am about to risk the wrath of our many brilliant cultural organisations by highlighting just a couple, but I mean no disrespect to the others. We are in the midst of Celtic Connections, which is one of our brilliant festivals, along with the Edinburgh International Festival and the other Edinburgh festivals. It is a thriving sector, which stands out. Our screen sector is also booming at the moment—a very welcome movement.
The growth sector statistics show that the gross value added by our creative industries in 2020 was £4.4 billion. That is a 62 per cent increase over the previous decade. However, over the past year, the existing budgetary challenges faced by Scotland’s culture sector have become even more acute, as they have in many walks of life and in many areas that we will discuss in the chamber this afternoon. We want to see what progress can be made with innovative funding solutions. We know the asks, but we need to see progress on multiyear funding and cross-portfolio funding models that embed culture in the wellbeing society, and on approaches to additional public funding, such as those that consider how the transient visitor levy might be used or how we engage with more private investment in culture.
The committee found little progress on those fronts when we reported last November, and we are calling for much greater urgency and a clear pathway to make tangible progress on implementing those funding models. The cabinet secretary told us last year that the Scottish Government is still in the foothills of making progress in cross-portfolio working. In our “Culture in Communities” report, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government now set out how it will accelerate that work.
In our pre-budget scrutiny report, we said that there is a need for much “greater urgency” and we strongly urged
“the Scottish Government to set out detailed plans for the steps it will take to achieve tangible year-on-year progress”.
As I have already mentioned, the culture strategy for Scotland, which has been warmly welcomed by the sector, will be key to doing that. As the strategy states,
“We will engage across government to mainstream culture in policy making, prioritising health and education in the first instance. Our work will recognise the transformational power of culture and value the contribution it makes to achieving key policy outcomes.”
]]>his argument about what we spent on the EU referendum. He forgets that we won that referendum in Scotland—we won it by a huge margin. Was 64 per cent not enough for him? Would 88 per cent of the vote in Scotland going for Europe have been enough? Mr Rennie argued that we did not do enough, but it is evident that the people of Scotland wanted to stay in the EU.
There was much furore last week when British negotiators walked away from the trade talks with Canada. Although concerns were raised on new segments by food producers and whisky companies, it was not reported that, if we had not left Europe, following a campaign based on lies and the othering of our European neighbours, our producers would be enjoying the comprehensive economic and trade agreement—CETA—which is a modern and progressive trade arrangement that offers the EU more and better opportunities in Canada.
I sit as convener of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, and Donald Cameron and I sit as observers on behalf of the Scottish Parliament on the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. The PPA is composed of a delegation of UK House of Commons and House of Lords representatives and members of the European Parliament. The Assembly has discussed on many occasions, and has made some progress on, a number of the post-Brexit concerns that have been raised in the chamber this afternoon.
The Windsor agreement brought some meeting of minds on those areas. We have back our participation in the Horizon and Copernicus programmes, which we gave up with Brexit. We have discussed youth mobility and exchange, which we gave up with Brexit. We have discussed touring artists and the burdens of multiple visas and cabotage, which did not apply before Brexit. It seems that we are spending our time picking and choosing to get back the very rights that—inconceivably—we gave up when the UK left the EU.
So, where is the big Brexit bonus? As has been shown in the chamber this afternoon, there just isn’t one. Brexit has led to our economy suffering from rising costs, borders to trade and an inability to recruit and retain valuable employees in our economy. Our European friends no longer enrich our communities in the way that they once did. Plans for energy interconnectors, security issues and unrest on the European continent and in Gaza all bring our world closer together, yet the Brexit disaster has left the UK isolated on the fringes of Europe. As I have said, the Scottish people did not want that. It happened against our will. Even when we tried to get some of the benefits that have been afforded to Northern Ireland—for very good and understandable reasons—that was denied to Scotland, so we no longer have access to the European free market.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh is conducting the Scotland-Europe initiative. A series of 10 events has now been held by the RSE as part of its project to examine the future relationship between the United Kingdom and Europe, which, as the RSE says, “remains unsettled.” At the same time, the RSE recognises that Europe itself
“is undergoing substantial change”,
and that we must look
“closer to home”
“distinct Scottish issues and options.”
In providing rigorous analysis of those issues, the project is drawing on academic research, examining the policy and institutional options for responding to some of the challenges, and engaging in dialogue with Government, business and civil society in Scotland. It is somewhat churlish to suggest that this, our country’s Parliament, is not an appropriate place to examine those very issues.
The Scottish Council on Global Affairs has been established. The University of Glasgow, the University of Edinburgh and the University of St Andrews are providing a non-partisan hub for expertise on international issues. Professor Phillips O’Brien, chair of strategic studies at the University of St Andrews, said:
“It’s time that Scotland had a rigorous, non-partisan, people-focussed Global Affairs institute that can bring together Scotland’s brilliant researchers with a range of groups from across society.”
The very best minds in our country are looking at our future and at Scotland’s place in Europe, which is the subject of the motion that we are discussing today. It is really important that we come to the subject with open minds and with a view to discussing all the ways forward for Scotland. We will disagree constitutionally, but we cannot ignore the fact that Brexit has been an absolute disaster for our country. We must all come together and look to the future and the options that are open to our country.
I believe that the best option is an independent Scotland and a return to the heart of European politics; others will have other ideas. Let us discuss the ideas rather than talk about the past and what people did in 1975. This is the future, and it is a future with Ukraine as a possible member of the European Union. We should remember what is happening in our world and look to Scotland’s future in that European Union, too.
]]>Cobots can also do precision welding. We know that industrial injury can be sustained from welding fumes, which is very close to the heart of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and its hazards group, which is investigating the matter, at the moment. Anything that makes such roles in our society safer and which takes danger out of work is amazing. We have seen that in the use of drones. The centre of excellence is well worth a visit and it is really excelling.
The centre also does outreach to the schools in my area. It runs robotics clubs in the college’s feeder schools, which is a welcome innovation. It gives young people opportunities such as we have been talking about. Learning does not always have to be about the classroom and Scottish Qualifications Authority assessments. The opportunity to take part in games of skill—robot wars and so on—is important in engaging our young people in technology.
With the cabinet secretary, I was, as the CPG chair, invited to the centre of data science and AI at the University of Glasgow. It is a new centre of excellence that is dedicated to examining how we can use big data and AI, and is imagining how they can be used in health. Cancer imaging in cancer research was demonstrated there. The centre is the state of the art for Scotland. Again, our education is leading, in that we are among the first countries in the world to have such a dedicated centre.
Recently, the cross-party group on science and technology had an evening event with Scotland’s critical technologies supercluster, which is at the University of Glasgow. During it we looked at quantum computing and semiconductors, which will absolutely transform what we are able to do in monitoring health. There are systems working that look at the microwaves and below wi-fi frequencies in our environment to detect changes in a person’s breathing. The opportunities for health and for looking after people with various conditions are simply breathtaking. They include protecting people in their homes from trips and falls. We also saw at the robotarium how we can support people in their homes with robotics.
Incidentally, one of the cobots costs around £25,000, after which the extension arm must be bought and fitted for whatever it will be used for. Such technologies are accessible to a lot of our SMEs. That is transformative.
The Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, which I convene, recently visited Ireland. When we were in Dublin, we met producers. I asked about AI in every meeting until the last. The food producers are using the next level of robots in their manufacturing and said that, if they did not have AI technology they could not be competitive in the European market or do what they do. That is absolutely where we need to be. I am delighted that we are doing that at the moment.
I have a final point, if I still have time on my hands.
]]>A few years ago, I spoke in a debate about the Scottish Council for Development and Industry report “Automatic for the People”, which examined the opportunities and challenges that Scotland faced in the fourth industrial revolution that was then almost upon us. That was just a few short years ago, but that revolution has now almost passed us, because of the speed with which technology has moved on and the way in which innovation has changed our environment.
Technology brings challenges, but we should embrace it. Scotland is leading in some areas of technology. The minister mentioned the robotarium at Heriot-Watt University. The cross-party group on science and technology, which I co-convene, visited the robotarium a short time ago. We were able to see some advances in robotics for use in agriculture and health, AI and chatbots, and how robots could be used in the hospitality industry.
In health, robots and AI are being used to examine people’s gait and to predict whether a person is likely to have a condition such as Parkinson’s disease, long before any other tests that are available to us might indicate that there could be a problem. The robotarium also includes sensor technology. I note that Mr McKee mentioned CENSIS, which is one of the internet of things and sensor technology centres for excellence. Minute changes in a person’s gait can, through use of the technology, be detected by machines in a way that a physiotherapist might not be able to, so gait could be corrected.
Through the gaming industry, games are being used to engage people in doing their exercises. All those technologies are coming together; we must be able to embrace them and move forward.
In my constituency, I am lucky to have the campus of New College Lanarkshire, in Motherwell. It has its smart hub, which is a funded hub that is directed specifically towards supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and enabling them to embrace technologies such as cobots—collaborative robots—and AI-enabled manufacturing and production opportunities. The consultancy is free to SMEs across Scotland. I was able to see the very simplest of robotics and pneumatics that could be used in a manufacturing process, but there were also cobots that were working alongside humans. The robots react if they are touched, so that there is no danger to people in their working environment. Some of the robotic arms from the cobots were being used in very innovative ways. I was blown away by what is happening there.
Cobots are, for example, working at height on our renewable energy wind turbines, where they can sand, weld, paint and repair the blades, in situ.
]]>nergy companies are resuming the installation of prepayment meters under warrant, following updated advice from the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. I have contacted Ofgem and major energy suppliers, which say that that is a last resort. However, my constituents in Motherwell and Wishaw, who are at the sharp end of that unfair practice by the energy suppliers, tell a very different story. Energy policy remains reserved to Westminster, so what engagement has the Scottish Government had with the UK Government regarding the unfair position that is faced by people who are forced to take prepayment meters?
]]>As I said, the committee believes that there is a need to re-articulate the definition and principles of the frameworks in the light of experience to date and our constitutional landscape. It recommends that there should be a new memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Governments that should include a supplementary agreement on common frameworks, which should include clarity on their purpose and give further transparency to the process.
Finally, I turn to our consideration of the Sewel convention. The committee has stated previously that that convention was “under strain” following the UK’s departure from the EU. Although the Scotland Act 2016 gave statutory recognition to the convention, that did not alter its status, and it did not become judicially enforceable. There continues to be considerable debate about whether the convention should be strengthened in law and subject to judicial review, whether it can be strengthened on a non-statutory basis or whether no strengthening at all is required.
We note that there is clearly a fundamental difference of viewpoint between the UK Government and the devolved Governments regarding the operation of the Sewel convention. It is also clear that that has led to a deterioration in relations between the UK Government and the devolved Governments. The committee’s view is that that level of disagreement on a fundamental constitutional matter is not sustainable, particularly in the context of what is an increasingly shared space at an intergovernmental level.
We note the view of UK ministers that
“it is sometimes necessary for the UK Government to act in its role as the government for the whole of the UK.”
We also note their view that
“it is necessary that the UK Government can fulfil the role of the UK’s national government”.
We are unclear what “necessary” means in that context and note that that is not stated in either the memorandum of understanding or the devolution guidance notes. It is also unclear how “necessary” relates to “not normally” and what the threshold is for necessity in justifying overriding the devolved consent of this Parliament or that of the Welsh and other devolved Parliaments. It is essential that we have an opportunity to hear from the UK Minister for Intergovernmental Relations to discuss the findings of the committee’s report and his written response to our previous letters.
Finally, I want to mention an event that happened yesterday at the University of Strathclyde, where we brought together academics, practising lawyers, former civil servants and postgraduate and PhD students from across these islands—from Queen’s University in Belfast to Durham University and the University of Liverpool, to name a few—to discuss the findings of the report and examine the issues in further detail. There will be a published note from that meeting and a podcast that was chaired by Professor Andrew Tickell, with me and my deputy convener, Donald Cameron. I commend those to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee’s 5th Report, 2023 (Session 6):
How Devolution is Changing Post-EU
(SP Paper 453).
]]>The report is the third in a series of significant reports that the committee has published on the constitutional changes arising from the United Kingdom’s having left the European Union. It is an important report for the Parliament that builds on our previous work on the UK internal market and the impact of Brexit on devolution. I thank my committee colleagues for their constructive and consensual approach and their perseverance in dealing with some highly complex and technical issues.
It might be useful for me to briefly remind members of the background and context that informed our work in producing the report. While the UK was part of the EU, there was little regulatory divergence within the UK due to the statutory requirement to comply with EU law in areas such as animal health, food safety and the environment. Outside the EU, that statutory requirement no longer applies in Scotland. Consequently, much higher levels of regulatory divergence internally within Great Britain and the UK and between GB and the EU are now a possibility. Given the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland has a different set of rules.
The key question for us as parliamentarians is what impact the new constitutional arrangements are having on our core legislative and scrutiny functions. Where does responsibility now sit for making law that was previously made in Brussels? Who decides whether UK-wide legislation covering a devolved area is appropriate? How do the public, businesses and other stakeholders know which Parliament and Government they should engage with? What happens if there is regulatory divergence between England, Scotland and Wales in the context of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020? If there is regulatory divergence, how does business keep updated on what regulations apply to it?
There are many other questions that we could ask, but that should give colleagues a flavour of the complexities that are involved. If, as legislators, we find that daunting, how can we improve public understanding of the changes in our constitutional arrangements? For example, what about raising awareness among small businesses that wish to expand and export to new markets? What about an environmental lobbyist that seeks to allocate limited resources in influencing the legislative process?
We examined those issues, and our report focuses on four main areas: intergovernmental relations; common frameworks; the Sewel convention; and delegated powers. I will focus on the first three areas, and the deputy convener will focus on delegated powers in his closing speech.
The committee notes the view of our adviser, Professor Keating, that there is now
“a complex landscape of intergovernmental mechanisms, which has grown incrementally rather than following from a clear constitutional design.”
We note that there was
“considerable clarity, consistency and consensus in how the regulatory environment was managed within the UK prior to EU-exit. After EU-exit there has been significant disagreement between the devolved institutions and the UK Government regarding how the regulatory environment should be managed within the UK.”
The committee also notes that that
“lack of consensus, clarity and consistency ... has considerable consequences for the effectiveness”
of this Parliament in carrying out our core scrutiny and legislative functions.
Further, the committee notes:
“Without consensus at an intergovernmental level in areas such as Common Frameworks and the use of delegated powers by UK Ministers in devolved areas, there is a significant blockage to effective parliamentary scrutiny. For example, with regards to transparency and the timing and level of information provided to Parliament.
But even where there is consensus at an intergovernmental level there remains a risk that the Scottish Parliament’s core functions are diluted. As we have noted previously the increased significance of intergovernmental relations within a shared governance space raises substantial challenges for parliamentary scrutiny.”
We consider that those challenges are structural and systemic, and are not just a consequence of political disagreements between Governments. Consequently, we recommend the need for a new memorandum of understanding and supplementary agreements between the UK Government and the devolved Governments, which should specifically address how devolution now works outside the EU. That should be based on a clear constitutional design, including consideration of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and it should give us more clarity.
I turn to the consideration of common frameworks. We noted that there appears to be a consensus among the UK Government and the devolved Governments that common frameworks provide an effective mechanism to manage regulatory divergence within the UK internal market. The committee’s view is that there needs to be much greater clarity around how regulatory divergence, which is a key principle that underpins devolved settlements, will be managed through the common frameworks programme. In particular, there needs to be clarity around how the market access principles of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 are intended to work in those circumstances.
We therefore believe that there is a need to re-articulate the definition and principles of the frameworks in the light of experience to date and the new constitutional landscape.
]]>I am also the MSP for Motherwell and Wishaw.
We have a project in North Lanarkshire that has seen more than 80 families come to my constituency to be welcomed into our community, and I commend the work of North Lanarkshire Council. Those families were not only provided with accommodation; that accommodation was fully furnished. There were starter packs and everything that they would need in respect of white goods and support services. Two towers that were earmarked to be demolished by the council were taken over. They have come back into use for the Ukrainian families, who are very welcome there.
Of course, thousands of people have lost their lives and many more have lost their livelihoods because of the Russian military assault. However, Putin is not just about occupation; he is intent on destroying Ukrainian culture, Ukrainian identity and the Ukrainian language in order to eradicate exactly what it means to be Ukrainian. Critical infrastructure has been razed. Make no mistake: what is happening is cultural imperialism. Theatres, places of worship and amenities for public good have been levelled by Russian shelling. Museums have been emptied of priceless treasures.
The invasion is rooted in centuries of persecution. The Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture have been oppressed throughout history. In the early 18th century, Peter I sought to eliminate the idea of a separate Ukrainian state. He issued a decree against the use of Ukrainian in religious texts and books. Peter II ordered the rewriting of the state regulations into Russian. Under Catherine II, churches across the Russian empire were ordered to conduct services in Russian.
Following the end of the Russian empire, Ukraine was absorbed into the Soviet Union. The Stalinist purges saw political dissidents—artists, writers and scientists—summarily sentenced and executed. Ukrainian culture was cynically positioned as rural and outdated, and attempts to assert independence were violently quashed.
Only a few short weeks ago, we debated in the chamber the horrors of the Holodomor. Some people still deny what happened during that dark period, but we cannot deny it, and we should not deny what is happening today.
The invasion draws from a legacy of imperial subjugation that seeks to erase Ukrainians. In 2021, the Russian leader published an article in which it was claimed that Ukraine has never existed and that Ukrainians and Russians are one people—one whole. Putin’s supporters have been radicalised by the imperialist ideals of their historical predecessors. It is important to note that those ideals are opposed vociferously by swathes of the Russian population.
After the invasion in 2022, troops began to confiscate and destroy Ukrainian history and fiction books amidst the bombardment of modern artillery. Grim historical goals remain the same.
In August 2022, I was honoured to host in the Parliament a cultural leadership dialogue with the Edinburgh International Culture Summit and the Ukrainian Institute. We brought together political and cultural leaders from countries that share a strong interest in strengthening Ukraine’s international standing and supporting Ukrainian culture. If Ukraine is to continue, we must reach out now and do everything that we can to support the Ukrainian people and their culture at this time.
]]>