Official Report 778KB pdf
Our next agenda item is the final part of our budget scrutiny of the culture spending portfolio for 2025-26, and it follows the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny last year and the publication of the budget in December. Last week, we heard from stakeholders in the culture sector and from Creative Scotland. We are joined today by Angus Robertson, the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Shona Riach, director of external affairs and culture, Scottish Government.
I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.
Good morning to you, convener, and to committee members, especially any new or substitute members. It is nice to see you all.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to open our discussion with some reflections on what I have heard from the organisations that gave further evidence to the committee last week and from colleagues, particularly from members who took part in Tuesday’s debate on valuing culture. I have listened to and read those responses with great interest and have also listened to the views of the many and varied culture stakeholders that I have had the opportunity to meet since the Scottish Government’s draft budget for 2025-26 was published in December.
It is clear to me that, although the proposed significant increase of an additional £34 million for Scotland’s culture sector in 2025-26 has been warmly welcomed by many across the sector and underlines this Government’s on-going commitment to strengthening it, we will not achieve all that we want to achieve together for culture in a single year. However, the budget is a significant milestone and, if supported by parliamentary colleagues, will take the Scottish Government halfway towards meeting our forward commitment of at least an additional £100 million annually for culture by 2028-29.
I would add that our aim for 2026-27, subject to the normal budget processes, is to deliver a further £20 million increase for the sector. I hope that my opening remarks will provide a level of confidence for the committee as well as the sector with regard to the longer-term trajectory of the Scottish Government’s commitment to invest in culture.
The Scottish Government’s budget is transformational for the culture sector in Scotland and could not be clearer about our steadfast support for Scotland’s arts and culture. It will enable us to continue funding initiatives such as the youth music initiative and Sistema. The additional funding will provide a package of support to the culture sector as a whole, including a significant funding uplift and multiyear settlement for Creative Scotland, giving it the means to offer regular funding to the biggest ever number of cultural organisations across Scotland.
The draft budget will enable the development of a culture and heritage capacity fund for the organisations that would benefit most from tailored supportive funding and guidance to help build their capacity and develop their future resilience. There will be increased funding for our national collections, the centre for design and the national performing companies to support their work, which is so important to our local communities, as well as being of international significance.
The draft budget will also double the funding available for Scotland’s festivals and ensure that more festivals beyond the central belt receive the support that they need to reach their full potential. There will also be an increase for Screen Scotland’s successful production growth fund, which will help attract international investment and encourage large-scale productions to choose Scotland because of our incredible locations, our studio and post-production facilities and our talented crews.
If passed, the draft budget for 2025-26 will support other important of areas of work, such as community access to culture, improving Scotland’s cultural exports and exchange and improving access to Scotland’s vital public libraries. Those plans for increased investment will be delivered alongside a commitment to reform the funding mechanisms for the culture and arts sector. We want to help the culture sector maximise the impact of every penny of public funding and to support it to work more closely with the private and third sectors to grow the overall funding pot for culture, diversify funding streams and become more sustainable and resilient.
In the recent programme for government, we announced a review of Creative Scotland as part of wider considerations of how the culture sector is supported. That review will ensure that the additional funding coming to the culture sector can be used to best effect.
I recognise that it is essential that the culture sector has an opportunity to input into the review, and at the start of the week, the Scottish Government launched a short survey to inform its scope. Members will know that, during the debate on culture in the chamber on Tuesday, I invited colleagues to take part, and I would encourage as many people who work across the culture sector as possible to respond. I should also say that the Scottish Government announced this week that Dame Sue Bruce will be appointed as the chair of the independent review of Creative Scotland, with a view to providing recommendations at the end of the summer.
I know that the pressures of meeting what are often significant capital infrastructure needs, along with pay settlements and inflationary pressures, have not gone away, and that many of our publicly funded culture bodies are continuing to grapple with those issues. Through our on-going work on public service reform, we are supporting our national culture bodies to work collaboratively and think creatively to come up with solutions to some of those challenges.
That approach has already yielded some positive outcomes. For example, we have agreed a revised framework document with Historic Environment Scotland that provides it with greater financial freedom to manage its commercial income. As part of that agreement, HES will reduce its dependency on public funding for its operational budget as commercial income continues to grow. This is the first year of that agreement, with a £2 million reduction in public funding as part of a five-year plan to reduce public funding by £10 million. Those greater freedoms will mean that HES will for the first time be able to invest every penny of its commercial income in protecting our historic environment for future generations, mitigating the impact of climate change, improving visitor experiences and delivering for Scotland.
It is that spirit of innovation, confidence and self-determination that is at the heart of the planned budget increase for culture in the next financial year. Facilitating an expanded multiyear funding offer from Creative Scotland will enable more of our creative people to worry less about funding and focus more on their creative practice. I look forward to working with the committee and members across all parties to make our collective ambition for a flourishing culture sector in Scotland a reality through support for the budget bill in the coming weeks.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will open with a couple of questions.
In last week’s evidence session, we heard about the new funding model for HES, which seemed to be welcomed by the sector. However, we also heard about the pressures on the national collections and our museums and galleries. Is a similar model being considered for that part of the sector?
The arrangement with Historic Environment Scotland is a first. It was asked for, considered and has been agreed to, and everybody will be looking very closely at how it works. HES is confident that it will be able to grow its commercial income. Everyone understands that if organisations in the sector are better able to increase their income, it will allow us to think about the appropriate use of Government and public funding in the years ahead, and there is potential for a recalibration in our natural heritage, historic environment and cultural organisations as a result.
It is part and parcel of not only providing a funding increase for the culture sector but changing the nature of funding across the sector. We are at the beginnings of that journey. I will not rule out changing the financial arrangements for other organisations in the light of what we learn from Historic Environment Scotland.
We should be prepared to think about the broad range of ways in which we can marshal the good will of people who want to support our heritage and culture sector. On a number of occasions, including in front of this committee, I have talked about opportunities through philanthropy, working with the sector both domestically and internationally. Some organisations are very good at raising money; understandably, those are usually the larger organisations, but there is potential for cultural organisations of all types to find financial support through philanthropy.
I am very interested in working out how we do that. How do we help people who want to be helpful? How do we help them identify which projects have the greatest need? I discussed those questions with the new chief executive of Historic Environment Scotland only yesterday, and I will be having those conversations with the rest of the sector, too.
A review of Creative Scotland that also considers the wider culture sector will give us pointers in that area. The Government does not have all the answers; indeed, that is why I have made my offer to colleagues. If anyone with a particular interest in any relevant area has views on how the culture sector or, in the case of HES, our historic environment, can be better supported—that is, what we can do more of, less of or differently—I am sure that Dame Sue Bruce would welcome all of them, and I genuinely encourage colleagues in that regard. It will help steer the remit of her review, her considerations and, no doubt, her conclusions, which we will all await with great interest.
You have mentioned the bigger organisations. One theme that has come through very strongly during this parliamentary session has been the wellbeing economy and how cultural organisations fit into that in our communities. We have talked about this for a long time over many sessions of the Parliament, and I guess that there is a bit of frustration about the progress in other funding streams. We have heard that the Deputy First Minister has announced a review of the national performance indicators and framework. I would also point out in particular Wigtown Festival Company’s evidence about the big problem of accessing culture in rural communities.
As you have said, an awful lot is going on next year with regard to the strategic development of how things move forward, both in Creative Scotland itself and in the review that you have mentioned. How will the budget support the aims of that cross-portfolio area of work?
There is a lot in that question, convener.
First, on the wellbeing economy, I want to put on record my appreciation of the many cultural organisations that already do a tremendous amount of work in that sphere. I saw that Neil Bibby was with the Royal Scottish National Orchestra in some of its outreach work; Scottish Ballet will, I think, be in the Parliament shortly, and members might not be aware of the outreach work that it has been doing, along with that of Scottish Opera, the National Theatre of Scotland and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra. Our national performing companies do a lot of outreach work, and that impacts very much on the wellbeing economy. Incidentally, they also tour across Scotland, reaching different places, and it is important that our cultural organisations are able to do so. A lot of good work is currently happening in relation to the wellbeing economy.
However, the question is: is there room to grow with that? Are there any gaps? How do we make sure that, across Government, we understand that this is as relevant in health, in education and in justice as it is in the culture directorate? It is a work in progress, and no doubt you will have me back—along with, perhaps, some of my colleagues from Government—to reflect on the importance of the matter and on the progress that is being made. Can there be more or quicker progress? No doubt there can, and I would encourage that to happen, as I am a strong believer in what culture and the arts can offer society more generally.
09:00On the point about rural areas and the cultural offering in other parts of Scotland, a number of measures and initiatives in the budget are well focused on ensuring that culture is supported across the country. I have talked a couple of times before about the foundational change that we will see through multiyear funding for the culture and arts sector, with organisations the length and breadth of Scotland being supported. At the moment, there are, I think, about 120 regularly funded organisations throughout Scotland, but there is every indication that in Creative Scotland’s forthcoming announcement on multiyear funding—which is dependent on the budget being passed—it will talk about plans to significantly increase the number of organisations, venues, companies, and so on that will be supported across Scotland. That multiyear funding approach will have a significant impact in rural as well as in urban Scotland.
The funding for the Culture Collective and on the community side of things across Scotland will be really important, too. The previous iteration of the Culture Collective did some really excellent work, much of which falls into the space of impacting on the wellbeing economy. That is where you are seeing the double benefit of those changes.
I would point to other elements of the budget—for example, funding for festivals in general. However, expo funding, which is aimed beyond Edinburgh and Glasgow, will have an impact elsewhere. There is support that we want to give festivals; you mentioned one very successful festival that is not in the central belt, and there are many others that I could go on about, but that would not be fair.
There is a lot in the budget proposals that will make a positive impact in general, and a lot that will specifically help the wellbeing economy, as well as support the arts in rural and urban Scotland.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. We will now move to questions from the committee.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. Much has been made of the welcome funding in the proposed budget, but every organisation and individual that we have heard from has said that it is too little, too late. It will not stop the rot and it will not deal with the fact that confidence and trust in the sector are at an all-time low. Over the past few weeks, we have heard from individuals and organisations that the pay awards, the reduction in the working week, the increase in national insurance contributions and the building maintenance backlog will mean that libraries, venues, theatres and museums will all struggle to survive, let alone thrive, even with the additional funding that is proposed.
The sector is still not managing to progress. This morning, you have provided information about other organisations, many of which are pioneers. They must deal with the reality of having to do less. They might have to close or decrease in size and pay off people. That will happen in the sector in the foreseeable future.
I very much hope that that is not the case. One of the great hopes across the culture sector is that multiyear funding will be able to deliver the exact opposite of what you have described.
I do not diminish the fact that there have been significant pressures and existential challenges, particularly for cultural organisations with built property and the issues that Mr Stewart has narrated as being a challenge for them. I await Creative Scotland’s confirmation of its multiyear funding decisions, in the anticipation that it will significantly improve the funding of cultural organisations across Scotland and that it will be transformational for a great many of them.
I have no doubt that we will come back to that, but it is for Creative Scotland to announce its decision and its board still has to sign off on that.
On Mr Stewart’s point about things that are causing significant problems, many of which we have already discussed in committee, a relatively new one is employer national insurance contributions. That is a real challenge, not least because the expectation is that the United Kingdom Government’s offset for its decisions to introduce the tax on jobs will not cover all the overheads. The increase in national insurance contributions for cultural organisations at scale, such as our national galleries, national museums and the National Library of Scotland, is a significant deal. It did not need to be so. We have not yet had satisfactory answers from the UK Government on funding to offset it, but we are working on that. I acknowledge that that is a significant challenge.
On the general point, I welcome the fact that Mr Stewart describes the budget funding commitments as being welcome, because I think that they are. I am perhaps generally more of a glass-half-full person than he is, but I know that he is asking pointed questions to identify whether the Scottish Government understands that things have been very challenging in the culture sector. I understand that—I have said that before and do so now again—but I think that this year will see a significant change at scale for the culture sector.
In the current year, funding for culture has increased by £15.8 million. Next year, it will increase by £34 million. That will take us halfway towards our five-year aim of raising annual funding by £100 million. We will have done that in two years. I am trying to do it as quickly as I can. Any encouragement that colleagues can give within their parties to support reaching that target is gratefully received; it will make a big difference.
Even when we get there, there is no doubt that there will be more to do, Mr Stewart. However, we are on the right course and that is why it is important that we get the budget passed.
I welcome the fact that Dame Sue Bruce has been appointed to deal with the review. During the past few months and years, we have heard that Creative Scotland has not been fit for purpose in relation to some of the ways in which it has managed the organisation and continues to do so. I hope that the review will be balanced and provide the opportunity to look at that. As you rightly indicate, cabinet secretary, we should all participate in the process and give our views and opinions.
The governance and scrutiny of, and confidence and trust in, Creative Scotland have been diminished because of its deeds and actions in the sector. It has not always taken advice from the professional bodies and the individuals who manage and co-ordinate things, and I hope that that will change as we go through the review. Whether Creative Scotland survives or another arts organisation takes its place, I hope that we can be confident that it will work hand in hand with the organisations and our outstanding performers. In recent times, there has not be much respect for the organisation within the sector, which has been and continues to be a problem.
I am sure that Dame Sue Bruce will look closely at colleagues’ views of Creative Scotland and the wider cultural sector. That is why I have encouraged colleagues to take part and share their views. Dame Sue will look closely at any suggestions about potential changes and will come to her own conclusions on the basis of the evidence that she is provided with.
In fairness, it is important to put on the record, among other things, the fact that Creative Scotland was responsible for helping the culture sector to get through the pandemic. As far as I am aware, at no point have any serious concerns been raised about the way in which very significant public funding was used to keep the culture sector afloat at that time. I have no doubt that Creative Scotland will have its own reflections on how it might wish to have done things differently. However, given the history of arm’s-length cultural organisations in Scotland, it is important that we have an organisation that plays a significant role.
I will share with the committee my hopes for what will emerge from the review. Given that we will have multiyear funding, it is important to understand what that will mean for, and how it will interact with, the rest of cultural support. How will the provision of multiyear funding for more cultural organisations relate to the open fund that Creative Scotland operates? How will it relate to other funding streams for festivals and so on? I could go on. I am really keen for the review to think about those questions and to work out what needs to happen next, because the world in which our creative community operates is changing very quickly.
I have mentioned to the committee previously that there are things—the digital dimension and the artificial intelligence dimension are just two examples—that will have an absolutely transformational impact on cultural organisations, on venues, on creatives in general and on freelancers in particular. A lot is wrapped up in what is heading in our direction.
Therefore, I think that now is the right time for a review. There has not been a review of Creative Scotland since 2010 or 2011, which means that Dame Sue Bruce has a good length of time to reflect on. She will also think about what is happening elsewhere. I am always keen to find out whether there are good examples from arts bodies in the rest of the UK or further afield that we can learn from, and whether there is anything that we should be thinking about doing more or less of or doing in a different way.
There is also the question of our arts infrastructure—we have Creative Scotland, Screen Scotland, Architecture and Design Scotland and a number of other bodies. We need to think about how we make sure that all that works together as well as it can. I do not know Dame Sue Bruce personally, but she has a great track record, and the fact that there has been such a broad welcome for her appointment makes me extremely pleased that we have someone in whom we can have the greatest confidence. She will look at what needs to be looked at, she will reflect on everyone’s input and she will make recommendations, which we will, of course, take very seriously.
I know Dame Sue Bruce, because she came in to help Aberdeen City Council when I was a councillor there. I hope that it brings the cabinet secretary comfort to know that she is not scared to take difficult decisions.
In your opening remarks, you mentioned funding for local projects. As you are aware, I have written to you in the past about the project that is under way in Aberdeen to reopen the Belmont cinema. I met the project team and heard about its exciting plans, along with its educational partner, Station House Media Unit. I was not at Tuesday’s culture debate in the chamber—I am sorry about that—but I believe that the Belmont was mentioned. I was pleased to hear that you met the project team this week. It is absolutely brilliant that, for once, politicians of all colours across the north-east have come together to support that project.
How will the funding in the budget help local projects and organisations such as the project to reopen the Belmont? The bigger question is, what will happen if the budget is not passed?
09:15
Again, there is quite a lot in that question.
As I think Jackie Dunbar knows, I lived in Aberdeen for four years when I was a student. Shona Riach, my senior official here, is from Aberdeen as well. We both understand how important the Belmont cinema is for cultural life. Yesterday, I met for the second time the team who are working on the Belmont cinema project. Hugely encouraging progress has been made so far. Public money has gone towards that, which is absolutely the right thing to do. A lot of thinking is going into what needs to happen now when it comes to capital for the project, and what needs to happen after—fingers crossed—the cinema opens. We had a discussion about both those things.
There has been a lot less focus on the issue of capital spending on culture than there has been on revenue. I was discussing that only this morning. When the budget is passed, as we hope that it will be, and we begin to get in place the revenue changes, we will all have to take a much closer view on dealing with the challenge of the limited capital that is at our disposal. In recent years, the capital allocation to the Scottish Government has been hugely problematic. Consequently, that has an impact on different areas of Government spend.
We have done our best. I am sure that colleagues will have noticed that, in the budget, we are contributing an additional £8 million in capital costs towards the Citizens Theatre project in Glasgow. I have previously given evidence to the committee that, when projects have run the risk of failure, a significant part of my and officials’ work in recent years has been to keep open cultural organisations and venues. In significant part, that has related to capital challenges. The increased cost of restoration, building, rebuilding and reopening has made the situation very challenging.
There is no magic wand when it comes to capital. You have heard evidence from other organisations that have significant buildings and maintenance programmes and would wish to have a bigger capital allocation. I, too, would wish to have a much bigger capital allocation for culture. However, we have secured significantly more funding this year than last year, which, in largest part, is going to the Citizens Theatre.
There are other calls on that money. I want to be as supportive as I can, but I do not have a magic wand, and there are other significant projects. The art works project in Granton is the biggest of those—in effect, it is the arts and culture repository of the nation. We need to get that right. There has already been significant investment from the Scottish Government, but there needs to be much more.
I am very interested in being as supportive as I can to the Belmont cinema. If I might abuse my position in having the microphone, convener, I say to any significant economic actors in the north-east that, if they wish to support a very worthy cultural project in the city of Aberdeen, they might support the Belmont cinema in its efforts; they will have our undying thanks for their involvement. I have committed to continuing work on that.
The second question was about what happens if the budget does not pass. If a new budget is not in place by the next financial year, the finances will roll forward every month on the basis of one twelfth of what they were during the previous financial year. The biggest consequence of that would be that there would not be funds for multiyear funding.
The consequences of not passing the budget would be pretty severe. I am working very hard to get agreement, and I have been inviting colleagues from all parties to ensure that they vote for the budget so that we do not get into that territory. I would rather spend my time and effort encouraging colleagues to understand why I think that what is being proposed has been welcomed across Government, particularly in my area of responsibility. In the debate in the chamber on Tuesday, members welcomed the increase in culture funding. Fantastic: let us pass the budget, and let us not have to confront what would happen if the budget was not passed. That is particularly important because of the sequencing and timing of multiyear funding.
The committee is aware that Creative Scotland’s board will be meeting this month, with a view to making an announcement before the end of the month on what it wishes to do at the beginning of the next financial year in April. If we do not have a budget, it will not have the money, so how can we launch one of the biggest-ever changes in funding for Scottish culture? I would rather not have to deal with those circumstances. I have made my point, and I hope that colleagues of all parties realise the consequences. The Government in Scotland is a minority, so it behoves members of other parties to realise that their votes matter, and that it is important to pass the budget.
Neil Bibby has a brief supplementary.
Cabinet secretary, last week, you tweeted:
“Glad to see the Scottish Government’s budget is set to pass”.
I very much hope that it is set to pass; I genuinely hope that it passes. As all parliamentarians know, there will be certainty on that only once the votes have been cast. Certain parties have suggested that they might countenance voting for the budget and that they would not rule that out, some have said that they might vote against it and some have said that they might abstain. Given the public statements that the parties have made, I would be delighted if the budget is passed. I would prefer it if members decided to vote for it, so that we know that that will happen. Perhaps Mr Bibby might vote for it.
A week is a long time in politics.
Mr Bibby makes my point: there is no certainty until the votes have been cast. Given that there are some weeks for Mr Bibby to listen to what is, I hope, the very persuasive case that I am making for the Scottish Government’s culture budget, I hope that he can be tempted to vote for it.
We have covered that point in detail.
The budget does not quite work in the way that you think it does, Mr Robertson. We do not vote on it line by line; there are bits of a budget that we might quite like, but we have to take it as a whole. I applaud you for making your case for the arts, but the reality is that that is not how it works.
I will ask you about the awards that Creative Scotland wants to make and will make. There is a view that your comment about the number of bodies that should receive public money through Creative Scotland has created a scenario in which the “jam”—to use the phrase of an arts sector representative—would be spread so thinly that it would make no difference, particularly at the top end for the bigger companies. What is your response to that?
You will remember what you said. I can read it out if you would like me to, because it is important to set the issue in context. In a report in Scotland on Sunday or The Scotsman, you were quoted as saying that 100 organisations currently receive funding, but that you would like that number to be 150. Your comments have been interpreted to mean that you are instructing Creative Scotland to take the money that it has and to spread it out more thinly. What is your comment on that?
Whoever is inferring that would be incorrect. I stand by the comments that I made. However, I think that the number is higher than the one that you put to me.
The article quotes you as saying that there are 100 regularly funded organisations—
Yes—currently.
—but that more than 250 organisations applied.
Indeed. That is 100 more organisations than you just suggested.
No—I said 100 organisations.
You suggested that 150—
I beg your pardon; 150 more organisations applied.
Point taken. There are a couple of points to make. First, this is a process that Creative Scotland is progressing with as an arm’s-length organisation. The “arm’s-length” part of that is really important. Secondly—
What is the context of your comment, then?
I am getting to that. Notwithstanding the fact that Creative Scotland is an arm’s-length organisation, it has been working with the Scottish Government to explain the process that it is engaged in, what financial quantum would be required for multiyear funding to be introduced and the range of organisations that could and would be financially supported as part of that change. The process has been made clear to the Scottish Government, but we are not involved in Creative Scotland’s operational decisions around that process.
As I think that the member is aware, organisations have applied for multiyear funding. Creative Scotland knows who they are, how many of them there are and how much support they want to receive. The Scottish Government has been involved in the conversation, because we support the introduction of multiyear funding and we want to work with Creative Scotland to make sure that the process works well. We want the funding model for regularly funded organisations to be broader and deeper with regard to the number of organisations that are supported—that would mean significantly more organisations being supported—and the scale of funding than is currently the case.
That is why I do not recognise the characterisation by others of the funding as being spread so thinly. However, we are now getting into the territory of recommendations that I have not seen, which the board of Creative Scotland will consider later in the month, and the announcement that it is yet to make. I will be looking closely at that announcement—along with, no doubt, Mr Kerr and everybody else—in order to be satisfied that the process is as foundational and transformational as I hope and believe it will be.
On a point of arithmetic, you said:
“I would like the maximum number of artistic organisations to receive that funding; if the figure is anything close to that, it will be more than double the number of Scottish cultural organisations that receive multiyear funding.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 3 October 2024; c 5.]
The budget has gone up, and across the parties we are saying, “Yes, that is great,” but if you then say that the number of organisations that receive multiyear funding is going to be doubled, it is inevitable that the jam will be spread more thinly, is it not?
No, I do not accept that. I suspect that we will come back to the issue when we actually have the facts before us rather than supposition.
I accept that. Let us talk about the review for a moment, which I asked you about in the chamber this week. You seem to have led Robert Wilson at Creative Scotland to believe that some things will not be included in the review. Why is that?
I have looked at Robert Wilson’s quote. To quote to Mr Kerr the evidence that Robert Wilson gave to the committee, he said:
“The point of the review is that it will cover the whole culture sector”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 9 January 2025; c 30.]
The review that we have announced will examine Creative Scotland’s remit, its functions and how it can best support the culture sector’s ambitions. It will be for Dame Sue Bruce to agree with ministers the review’s remit. That will be informed by the responses to the surveys that we have launched this week.
But you have already said to Robert Wilson that the review will not include Creative Scotland’s operating processes. Anne Langley echoed that in her comments to the committee last week.
I have just outlined the two—
Is that not right, then?
09:30
I am telling the committee that the position is as follows: the review will examine Creative Scotland’s remit, its functions and how it can best support the culture sector’s ambitions, and it will be for Dame Sue to agree the remit of the review. I will repeat what the chair of Creative Scotland said to the committee, which was:
“The point of the review is that it will cover the whole culture sector”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 9 January 2025 c 30.]
In answer to the questions that I put to him, he also said:
“We have had many discussions with the cabinet secretary and Government officials. That is our understanding based on what has been presented to us in those discussions.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 9 January 2025 c 31.]
The operating process is not included in the remit; it is there in black and white in the Official Report. I know that you have read it.
Convener, do you require me to say for a third time that the remit of—
I am asking you to square the circle.
For the third time, for the benefit of Mr Kerr, the remit of the review will be agreed. It has not yet been agreed. It will be agreed with Dame Sue, who is leading the review, and me, and that is yet to happen.
Cabinet secretary, my job here as a member of this Parliament is to scrutinise the work of the Government, and I am reading to you from the Official Report of our previous meeting, when something was said to have been excluded from the review. Is that incorrect? I think that you are saying that Robert Wilson is wrong.
Mr Kerr—
No. I agree with Robert Wilson. For a third time, if not a fourth time—
No, no.
Mr Kerr—
If I may be allowed to finish, convener, Robert Wilson said:
“The point of the review is that it will cover the whole culture sector”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 9 January 2025 c 30.]
I agree with Robert Wilson: it will.
Right. I am sorry, convener. You wanted to say something.
You have got your answer.
I think that I have, but, frankly, it is very vague. I can only go on the evidence that the committee gets from the people who come before it, and the evidence that we got last week is not what the cabinet secretary is saying.
Mr Kerr, I, too, know Dame Sue Bruce from my time as a councillor. We will have her in when the remit is decided and will engage in that process, as the cabinet secretary has said.
Convener, I accept your evidence as well as that of the cabinet secretary. The issue with the remit will not go away; that is understood.
Cabinet secretary, Alexander Stewart put to you the real prospect that some of our national assets will close, particularly in the light of some of the evidence that we received from NGS. If I may say so, your response to that does not cut it. You said that you hope that that will not be the case, but we need more than hope. Apart from the fact that we have the most beautiful country in the world, one of the main reasons why people come to Scotland is because we have the richest cultural context that can be imagined. It makes Scotland Scotland.
Last week, Anne Lyden told us that, in 2025, wings of institutions and perhaps whole institutions will be shut down and hours will be reduced. Hope is not going to cut it. What will you do in a situation in which National Galleries of Scotland shuts down attractions?
Maybe Mr Kerr was about to talk about the budget itself—
I am talking about it.
—and the budget lines in relation to capital. The capital allocation for the National Galleries of Scotland is going up from £4.1 million to £6.2 million. It is important and right that NGS receives more money, because of the pressures that Mr Kerr has outlined. However, as I said in my opening statement, I acknowledge that not everything will be sorted to everybody’s satisfaction in one year. That is why we have committed to raising funding by the amount that we have committed to raising it and to doing so as quickly as possible.
I also said a few moments ago that there is more to be done on the capital allocation. I think that I am right in saying that the National Galleries of Scotland finished its maintenance review in November, which was after the budget considerations were made. I will look closely at all reports from our cultural organisations that require capital support, including the National Galleries of Scotland, and my officials will work closely with that organisation and others to make sure that we can support them all as well as we possibly can.
Dealing with the challenges that we are dealing with at present is a case of doing much more than hoping. We are providing extra resource and support, and we are working closely with all the organisations that are dealing with such challenges. I will be making the strongest case that I can for more capital funding. We have secured a significant increase in funding this year, and we have largely put that into a project that would probably have failed without that support.
If there are any other such projects or any institutions that are suffering from such challenges—there have been a number and, incidentally, they have not closed, because we acted—we will deal with them not on the basis of hope but on the basis of understanding the nature of the challenge and working out what resources are at our disposal. I have signalled that capital funding is a particular challenge, but, notwithstanding that, we have tried to do everything that we can to help organisations. That was the case with the V&A in Dundee, where we intervened to support it as an important institution in Scotland. If there are—
Are you saying that, in extremis, there is a possibility that more support might be available—for example to NGS—in a scenario such as that which Anne Lyden painted for the committee last week? Frankly, it was a depressing scenario. She talked about cutting the number of days that assets are open for and closing whole assets. When I asked her whether she was talking about that happening in the coming year, her exact word was “definitely”. Are you saying that, when the leader of NGS provides such a set of immediate actions to deal with financial challenge, you will act?
I have always acted.
You have always acted—that is good.
I can think of other examples. Often, they are not in the public realm because of the commercial sensitivities for some organisations, so I hope that Mr Kerr appreciates that dynamic as part of my answer. However, whenever organisations are suffering distress, I would wish the Scottish Government to know about that. We are aware of the organisations that have given evidence to the committee and outlined the constraints under which they are operating, and there is constant discussion between officials and those organisations. However, if committee members are aware of other organisations in that situation, I would wish them to raise that with me.
If the history is ever written of the nature of the challenge to the culture sector here, elsewhere in these islands and internationally, during and since Covid especially, one of the things that we can be very appreciative of is the work that has gone on, mostly behind the scenes, with a significant number of organisations that we view as part of our cultural firmament. We have done everything that we possibly can to ensure that those organisations have been able to continue. My great hope is that, now, we are beginning to see significant change—this goes back to the point about foundational change—in the nature of funding for culture and the arts, which includes, among other things, our national galleries, national libraries and national museums.
However, Mr Kerr could, equally, say to me that there are challenges with regard to other parts of the cultural estate, including local museums and libraries—
Yes, we covered that in the debate on Tuesday.
—and I agree that those pressures are felt across the piece, which is why, among other interventions, we are raising the amount of funding for local government, because the issue is not just the responsibility of the Scottish Government.
Absolutely.
Frankly, I hope that Dame Sue will also consider how we can work in partnership. We have done that, but we need to think about whether we can do more, working with the likes of local government, to ensure that our infrastructure is retained—or retained for the best purpose for 2025 and the future—and to ensure the delivery of cultural policies, whether those relate to music tuition or anything else.
We had a pretty good debate about that and all those issues on Tuesday.
Mr Kerr, I will stop you there. We have a second session today and we are tight for time. I have three other members who have not been in yet. I will come back to you if there is time.
I will bring in George Adam, and then Ms Mackay.
When you have been here as long as I have, cabinet secretary, you have heard and seen just about everything. I cannot believe how smug Mr Bibby was, talking about sitting on his hands and abstention in the budget vote.
In relation to the budget process, so that everybody in the room understands, I note that it is not a case of simply picking and choosing parts of the budget; it is about the budget in its entirety. In the past, we have had political parties who have had the maturity to say, “There are certain aspects of the budget we don’t like, and there are certain bits that we do like, but it’s about coherence, and the way in which this place works is done in such a way.”
However, we do not seem to be in that place now, but in a place where the Labour Party wants to sit on its hands and say to everybody, “We’re doing absolutely nothing”, while the Conservative Party simply wants to say, “We just think it’s all rotten and we’re going to vote against it.”
No, no.
You have had your time, Mr Kerr.
But you cannot say that.
Surely it is a case of having a level of maturity in the debate about the Scottish Government’s budget. Surely they should up their game a bit in this situation.
Hang on—
Well, I would—
Just a second, cabinet secretary.
Please, Mr Kerr. You have not been called to speak and I am the convener.
If we could try to concentrate on budget scrutiny with the cabinet secretary—
That is exactly what I am doing.
—and treat one another with respect.
I ask, please, for a bit of order in the committee.
It is for my colleagues to make the case about other parts of Government spending. In relation to the culture budget, however, I really think that this year’s culture budget proposals are transformational and important, and that the sector is expecting, and hoping, that the budget be passed. I share that hope. However, as I have said, I have been at this long enough to know that one knows the result of the vote only when one actually sees it.
I think that the budget will have a transformational impact. At the same time, we are thinking about what changes need to happen in relation to the administration of, and support for, the culture sector more generally. That is why I repeat my point that I am genuinely interested in hearing colleagues’ specific proposals.
My one takeaway for all colleagues, beyond this meeting, is that they should have a look at the survey that has been circulated and share their views. I am sure that Dame Sue will take it all very seriously.
One of my other questions is about the organisations that we had in front of us last week. The difference in attitudes among them was stark.
Historic Environment Scotland, for example, said that it is working in very difficult times and has many challenges, but has a plan with the Government on how it can release funding streams from elsewhere. Other organisations, as colleagues have mentioned, went down the route of saying, “Well, I just need the power to sack people and cut my wages bill”, rather than looking at different ways of working.
One individual in particular, when asked about commercial funding, said, “Well, I don’t think there’s much chance of us being able to get that”. I do not believe in double-jobbing as an MSP, but I felt like saying that I would quite happily take an afternoon off and get them the commercial funding that they are looking for.
Surely, in current times, organisations should be looking at other ways of getting funding. Historic Environment Scotland is a perfect example of an organisation that has found a different way of doing business.
One area for which we have a budget allocation this year, which we have not had until now, is a culture and heritage capacity fund. That could provide some very useful help and support to organisations that might not have the capacity for, expertise in, or insight into how to diversify or build more resilience into themselves.
I am really interested in the matter. At the heart of what Mr Adam is pointing to is the fact that, although some organisations are early adopters of doing things in new ways, reviewing how they operate and working out how they can access more funding streams, that might be more of a challenge for other organisations. A fund that will support organisations through that process is a really good thing at a time of change, and £4 million has been allocated to it.
09:45There is a lot of thinking in Creative Scotland about organisations that will be funded on a multiyear basis, but also about organisations that will not. How can one help those organisations to get themselves to a place where they may be considered for multiyear funding in future rounds, or where they have the help and support that they need in order to become more commercially successful, better able to get income from other sources or better able to use certain kinds of technology?
That, in part, is what I am saying about the budget being not just about foundational funding change, but about helping with change in organisations so that they are on a firmer footing and able to do what they want to do.
That is important. Creatives in Scotland will always complain about Creative Scotland, but it is a grant-awarding organisation. There will be those who get their grants and those who do not, so someone will always complain about it.
There are issues with Creative Scotland. I was perhaps a bit harsh when Robert Wilson was here and I asked him what the point of him was, which was because I could not really see what Creative Scotland was delivering for many creatives. There is a need for an organisation like Creative Scotland, however, whatever we call it. Back in my day, it was the Scottish Arts Council.
We can look at the success of Screen Scotland, as part of Creative Scotland. It is working on a commercial basis and is able to generate some funding itself. How could we make that model part of Creative Scotland and get that dynamism into the organisation?
The first thing to reflect on is that Screen Scotland is part of Creative Scotland. As Mr Adam has just pointed out, Screen Scotland has shown itself to be extremely successful at using the resources that it has to leverage in additional resources for co-production and so on. One reason why we have been keen to give it some more resource is so that it can do even more of that.
We need to reflect on the fact that there are bits of artistic creation that will never make money or be profitable, but are as intrinsically important to our cultural life as those that are commercially viable and successful. That is the eternal tension: it will never go away. We have to try to get the balance right for our cultural life—between the commercial and the non-commercial and the conventional and the less conventional. Some things are not necessarily everybody’s taste or priority, which is why we have an arm’s-length organisation to deal with those things. Mr Adam is right to say that there is a tension.
It is my hope that, in her review, Dame Sue Bruce will be able to point us in the right direction to share understanding from the bits of the cultural ecosystem that are early adopters and forward looking in securing commercial income. We should ensure that organisations that are very good at philanthropy are more widely understood. I think that we can grow the cake.
It is not just that certain institutions are very good at things, so they should just be left to get on with it—we all have an interest in the entire sector thriving. I hope that the review will help us through this period of change, both by signposting different ways of doing things and by providing capacity and support.
We have not talked about skills yet. We must ensure that part of the wider thinking—it is—is about the next generation of people who want to become creatives or work in trades within the culture sector, and their getting the traditional and modern skills to enable them to do so.
That is why this is a really exciting time for us to be getting the funding to where it needs to be, as well as getting in place the architecture around how we administer, fund, educate, skill and promote the entire sector so that all that can be done in the best way possible. This is going to be a very good year with regard to all those aspects.
Finally, on that point, one reason why I am quite disappointed with the national creatives when they come here with their attitudes is the fact that, being from Paisley, I know that the creatives in Paisley are extremely proactive. Indeed, everyone in Paisley has had to fight for everything in our lives over the years. Let us look at the projects that have been on-going in Paisley for the past five or six years. In the High Street, there is the multimillion pound investment in the museum at the top end, a new library in the middle and the renovated Paisley town hall bookending it. There is a venue at one end and a museum that will attract more footfall. That shows a different approach to town centres, with culture at its heart.
I have often said that culture and the cultural world will regenerate our high streets and town centres, given that the big-box retailers will not be coming back to town centres the length and breadth of Scotland. Do you agree with that? I would be quite happy if we were to use Paisley as a pilot for such a programme, should you ever look at anything like that, cabinet secretary. I think that that is the way forward. What are your opinions on that?
I caution you, cabinet secretary, that we are really tight for time. Although that is an ambitious wish of Mr Adam—
It is a budget-related matter as well.
I am not sure that it covers this year’s budget. I ask you to be succinct, because two other members still want to come in.
As every member of the Scottish Parliament knows, Mr Adam is a fine ambassador for the city of Paisley. I know his views on city status. He has made a really interesting point. Let us consider how Dundee has been able to redefine itself as a city of design, of which V&A Dundee and other cultural organisations are parts. Indeed, Dundee is a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization city of design. Those things have helped Dundee to tell a story about where it has come from and where it is going, and it is making itself a very attractive place for people to visit, in the meantime. That is a really good model for any town, city or rural area to consider. How is it thinking about culture? How does it reflect what that says? How inviting is it to people from elsewhere to visit? I definitely think that there is something in being more strategic about all that.
If the—alliterative—Paisley pilot is going to be the way to do it, I would, of course, be delighted to work with Mr Adam or colleagues from anywhere else who feel that the convening power of Government should be used to bring together Scottish Government and its agencies, local government and its agencies, the third sector and the local cultural community as parts of an initiative. I would be very interested in thinking and reflecting on that.
I think that that is something to consider going forward, cabinet secretary. I note Mr Adam’s members’ business debate on St Mirren Football Club’s partnership with the University of the West of Scotland. You were talking about skills earlier on, cabinet secretary. That would be another way of looking at how those skills can be developed.
We have to move on. I call Ms Mackay.
Mr Adam has, unknowingly, teed me up nicely for my questions. Paisley is a good example of a place where cultural venues are located along its high street. However, that is not the norm across a lot of the country. Across my region, we have seen the closure of town halls. Motherwell concert hall is closed because of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete within it, and it is very unlikely that it will reopen without major investment, which the local authority is not able to make.
Many local authorities offload cultural venues to make budgetary cuts across the piece. It is great that there is the Ravenscraig regional sports facility in North Lanarkshire, but that is not the same as having an accessible concert hall in the middle of the community in Motherwell.
The accessibility of culture is something that we need to consider. It is great to have the museums in Edinburgh and Glasgow that people are able to visit for free, but getting to Edinburgh and Glasgow is very expensive and time consuming for many people.
I know that the cabinet secretary touched on this earlier, but what other conversations can be held with, and what support can be given to, local authorities to ensure that we do not lose many important venues for smaller-scale cultural performances or whatever? If we lose those venues, the likelihood of their coming back and being there for future generations—and for future budgets to provide support to—is quite low.
That is a big subject. We need to understand the cultural forces that are leading to changes in use of cultural venues. Cultural venues, high streets and churches—though not exclusively those—are three particular areas where we have seen massively accelerating factors at play that make our public authorities and agencies reflect on what that means for venues.
I am not sure that we have yet got to grips with how we make sure that we retain cultural venues at the level that all communities wish for, or how we make sure that high streets are as vibrant as people wish them to be. The church estate, which has been an important part of community life and history, is being sold off at an accelerating rate.
Those three things were the subject of a conversation that I had yesterday with the new chief executive of Historic Environment Scotland. The conversation was about with whom we need to work and talk about those three things—there will, no doubt, be others—to make sure that there is coherence in dealing with such societal change. With three minutes left in this evidence session, I suspect that we will have to come back to all that, but Ms Mackay can rest assured that I believe that the matter is definitely something that we need to be thinking about.
On accessibility, our having significantly more regularly funded organisations being part of the multi-annual funding programme, the Cultural Collective operating right across Scotland, and the community collective operating as part of a wider offer, will mean that, throughout the country, cultural organisations will have funding so that they can rehearse, perform, have open days, work with schools, work with groups of retirees and so on.
I think that that funding will go some way—I hope it will go a significant way—in relation to the accessibility of culture in localities across Scotland, and that it will also be felt positively by venues across Scotland, whether they are headline culture venues, repurposed public venues or church venues. That is part of what I hope will emerge this year, in relation both to funding and working together with other bodies to make that so.
I have a couple of questions on cross-portfolio working and policies. The first question is on the economy. The office of the chief economic adviser reported that
“Employment in the Creative Industries sector stood at 90,000 in 2023, accounting for 3.4% of employment in Scotland and 5.4% of employment in Creative Industries across Great Britain.”
There is a significant relative gap between Scotland and Great Britain in creative industries employment. That is obviously not a role just for the culture portfolio—there is also a wider economic role. I have raised this issue with you before. Can you confirm that creative industries will be part of the wider review, and that the role of economic development agencies in supporting culture and the creative industries will form part of that review?
Yes.
Okay. I thank you for that.
10:00
I will go back to Mr Bibby’s point briefly. His question is a really good one. I will give him an example of a very current area that he knows about, because I have spoken to him this week.
Let us take broadcasting as an example from the creative sector. We have worked on a cross-party basis to make sure that public service broadcasters are commissioning everything that they can and should in Scotland, given that we pay a licence fee. In recent weeks, we should all have been given reason to question whether the system is working. Is television commissioning in Scotland’s screen sector supported in the way that we have been told it should be, and does it have safeguards for supporting jobs in the sector?
A good example of why there has been a difference in employment levels is the massive concentration of screen and TV in London and the south-east of England, although there have been moves to correct that. The Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland agreed, the English regions agreed and the BBC has agreed. That is why the BBC moved to Salford and why it says that it is trying to commission elsewhere.
I know that the committee is looking at that issue, but that is a good example of why there is a differential, and why there is a real prize in getting it right so that there is a smaller differential and so that we grow the creative sector as much as possible.
That is an important issue to look at. The BBC will be at committee next week; I am sure that ensuring that Scotland and all nations and regions of the UK get their fair share of production will be a topic of discussion.
On cross-portfolio working, I want to ask about education. Robert Burns is a significant part of Scottish culture. His writings have influenced our history and have been part of the curriculum for some time. However, the move to downgrade Burns from higher English has been criticised by many, including Professor Gerard Carruthers, who holds the Francis Hutcheson chair of Scottish literature at the University of Glasgow, who has said:
“It is vitally important that we provide our young people with endless opportunities to study Burns”.
What is the culture secretary of the Scottish Government’s view on the downgrading of Burns in the curriculum in Scottish education?
My understanding is that it is not a downgrading as much as it is giving teachers the ability to choose texts and areas for focus. I definitely do not want any downgrading of Robert Burns or Scottish literature more generally; I do not want downgrading of literature or poetry from any background. Learning as much about our own culture as we do about others is a boost to our culture. Any evidence of downgrading of teaching Scotland’s literature would be of concern to me.
I have no doubt that Mr Bibby will continue to ask me about the subject, and I will be happy to correspond with him on it.
Have you raised the removal of Burns as a stand-alone author with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Scottish Qualifications Authority—
We are on the budget today, although I appreciate the concerns about that.
I will write to Mr Bibby on that point.
The question is on the cross-portfolio scheme.
I have said to Mr Bibby that I will write to him, because I know that it is an important subject.
The meeting is about the budget. Mr Bibby, do you have another question?
That is all, thank you.
Cabinet secretary, do you have time for one more question from Mr Kerr this morning?
I have loads of questions.
Mr Kerr, if you could, please ask your question succinctly.
I will conclude on a note of unanimity.
Fantastic.
I think that the convener and the cabinet secretary would welcome that.
I am concerned about the flight of corporate sponsorship from the arts because of political activism. I know that you have spoken out on the subject, cabinet secretary, and I agree with what you have said. You went further than some others in your remarks: you said that the loss of corporate sponsorship by organisations such as Baillie Gifford is an “existential threat” to the whole arts sector.
What can we do to reverse that trend? What can we do to insulate the arts sector from the kind of reckless political activism that includes wrecking of art treasures, invading of cultural spaces, disruption of performances and now blackmailing of organisations to rid themselves of sponsors such as BP?
I agree with Mr Kerr that it is important that we appreciate how important philanthropy and corporate sponsorship are to culture and the arts in Scotland, as they are elsewhere. There are recent examples that should give us all cause for concern. For example, I am concerned that children from deprived backgrounds might not be able to take part in the likes of the Edinburgh book festival, as they were previously, because funding has been reduced.
This is all a matter of public record, but Mr Kerr has asked me specifically about what can be done. There are things that can be done and I am keen to explore some of them this year. We might get some helpful insights and advice on the area from the forthcoming review. I will certainly share my views with Dame Sue Bruce.
It is not illegitimate for people to want to know that the financial support for events is contributed by ethical providers and to ask how companies make their money. At the same time, it is important that we are protective, helpful and supportive of the arts sector so that its income is not undermined, as it has been. The challenge is in striking a balance between those two things.
I am happy to discuss that further with Mr Kerr, because I already have some ideas, but now is not the time to share them. I am seized of the issue and it cannot go on like this. A lot of the commercial organisations that have been tremendous supporters of arts and culture, such as Baillie Gifford, want to be able to support culture and the arts, and I want them to be able to do it. At the same time, I also want to make sure that, if there are ethical considerations that we should reflect on, we find ways of doing that without undermining culture and the arts. There is no doubt that the conversation is to be continued.
I look forward to that conversation.
Cabinet secretary, I thank you for your attendance at committee this morning. I have no doubt that we will see you again soon.
10:07 Meeting suspended.