Seòmar agus comataidhean

On the general point about multiyear funding, there is a huge interest in the third sector as a whole in multiyear funding working. That is why, quite apart from the self-evident advantages that it would bring to the cultural sector, proving that moving from an annual funding model to a multiyear funding model is workable will be a huge prize for the third sector as a whole, and what is true in the arts sector is definitely true in the heritage sector and in the charitable sector.

The Government is definitely thinking about that. Historic Environment Scotland is in a very interesting place, because it has wanted greater freedom to determine its own budgetary circumstances, and I have agreed with that. At Historic Environment Scotland’s last board meeting, it agreed on its plan in relation to that. That is hugely interesting, and no doubt the committee may take a view on whether it wants to better understand how that operates.

Historic Environment Scotland has been very successful in dealing with the challenges that have been alluded to in relation to what has happened on an environmental basis to a lot of our historic infrastructure and in the work that it is doing to maintain and protect that. Historic Environment Scotland, from a budgetary point of view, has been given the freedom to get more income through its own efforts, and I welcome that. I am very supportive of that.

Shona Riach, do you want to add anything on that point?

I would encourage anybody with whom Mr Brown’s description chimes to get in touch, please. I spend a lot of time going to events with people from the culture and creative sector. I very much hope that people feel that I am approachable, that my officials are approachable and that we are very interested in what people have to say. If there is somebody who feels that that is not the case, please get in touch and we will do our level best to make sure that everybody’s voice is heard.

The point about cross-portfolio working is a good one. I assure the committee that it happens and I can give an example of that. This week, I took part in a cross-portfolio meeting on rural Scotland and how the Government is delivering right across Scotland. Members of the committee and other members of the Parliament have made the case that culture exists right across Scotland, not just in our urban centres or in the biggest events that often take place in cities. Events take place the length and breadth of Scotland and we need to make sure that we are supportive of that.

Another dimension to multiyear funding is that, if we and Creative Scotland can deliver on all that, it will lead not only to an increase in the number of organisations that are supported, but to a bigger footprint of cultural organisations that are funded across Scotland, which would be a good thing.

I would not expect to say this to you often in debate, Mr Stewart, but I agree with absolutely everything that you have said. Your characterisation of where the sector is and where it feels it is, the nature of the challenge and also the prize, if I can call it that, of getting this right is correct.

Would I wish progress to be quicker? Absolutely. I have seen much of the evidence that has been given to the committee. The perfect storm that has existed for the culture and arts sector here—and, incidentally, elsewhere in the United Kingdom and in other countries too—has been profound. The impact of inflation, among other things, has been asymmetrical. The impact of inflation on the arts and culture budget has been much higher than it has been elsewhere—we can read about that in the newspapers this morning, with people restoring cultural venues and theatres finding that the costs of doing so have been going up.

The nature of the challenge has been profound for the sector. The word “if” is at the heart of your question, and I really hope that we have the answer to the problem. The good news is that this significant change for a significant part of the sector—venues and organisations—revolves around multiyear funding, which is to be introduced next year. As we emerge from this time of extreme distress in the sector, we have a commitment by the Government, which I have reiterated and repeated and which I am 100 per cent committed to trying to deliver.

If we deliver that funding at the scale and at the speed that I would wish it to be at, and if we deliver multiyear funding, I think that we will be a significant way forward. When venues and organisations know that they have funding for a number of years ahead, they will be able to get on with what they want to get on with, which is being creative, rather than worrying about the bottom line. Of course, we need to take account of the bottom line, which is why we have a process for things. Predictability is the point: multiyear funding would allow organisations to know where they will be, not just for this year or at the end of the financial year, but for a number of years ahead. The good news on the applications for funding that are being made to Creative Scotland is that the creative sector has been putting in bids that are not just about keeping heads above water. To use Mr Stewart’s own words, it is about remaining constant, having long-term clarity and delivering what they want in creative terms—I believe that they can do that.

I will signal, because we have not yet touched on it, that we have been talking entirely about revenue. I am clear that, to manage to deliver on the commitments of the Government and on the trajectory, there are quite a lot of “ifs” as part of that, and in a Parliament of minorities we are all involved.

I will make the case as part of the budget process for the Government to commit the funding, but the budget will need to be passed and, without it, the resource will not be there to deliver. I do not want to create further concern, because every year, everything is subject to the parliamentary budget process. Everyone understands that, but it is pretty important. We will need to get the budget through with an added allocation, but there is an asterisk there. I am very keen not to lose sight of capital funding. There are projects that I would wish to support, but we do not have the capital funding allocation to allow us to do so at present.

However, is that something that we should now look at? I am not drawing limits on how a review can consider the creative landscape.

The second point—it cannot be a subsidiary point, because it is that important—is that the funding must follow the responsibility. Therefore, if there are any decisions about including or removing something from the culture portfolio, the funding will follow. Mr Harvie might point out that that is exactly what happened recently with regard to events, which had been part of my portfolio responsibility. That responsibility included delivering the likes of the cycling world championships. That is now back in the economic portfolio, and the money that is assigned to it has gone with the responsibility. I do not want to get too far ahead of myself.

Mr Harvie was modest in describing screen as doing “pretty well”; it is doing unbelievably well. The industry is now worth £635 million—give or take some millions—gross value added per year. By independent estimation, by 2030, it will be worth more than £1 billion to Scotland, and that is not including the games sector. It is therefore one of the great stories that we have in our creative and cultural firmament. Should the Government and our agencies do everything that we can to help it to survive and thrive? Absolutely. Should a review look at that? Yes, it should.

In circumstances of previous incoming Governments, the length of time that it took for a UK budget to be in place and for there to be clarity is as follows. In 1979, a change of Government led to a budget in one month and nine days. In 1997, Gordon Brown delivered an incoming budget after two months and one day. In 2010, George Osborne delivered a UK budget in one month and 16 days. Rachel Reeves, the incoming UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, will deliver her budget three months and 26 days after the election.

My point—this is really important—is that I would wish to have been able to give clarity to the creative sector a lot earlier than we have been able to do, but we are entirely dependent on clarity from the UK Government about what our budgetary situation is likely to be. I do not think that any responsible member of the Scottish Parliament would suggest that we could unilaterally make budgetary decisions without any idea of what our budgetary situation is going to be. Would I wish us to have had earlier clarity? Absolutely. Could the UK Government have given us that? It has not.

We will have a budget as quickly as we possibly can following the UK’s budget. In the meantime, I am making every case that I can in Government to ensure that the funding is in place. Mr Bibby, you cannot, on the one hand, say that we should make promises about funding when we have absolutely zero clarity from the UK Labour Government more than three months after the general election.

We gave that commitment last year, in the budget speech.

Last year, we not only made a commitment to a £100 million increase; we confirmed that we would be increasing the amount by £15 million, and there was an intention—which I have read out to the committee, so I do not think that I need to do so a second time—with an aim to do that by the scale of £25 million this year. That is the scale of the agreement that I am trying to secure from ministerial colleagues. However, we have to do that on the basis of knowing what the actual budgetary situation is like. Otherwise, I would be before the committee being traduced by colleagues for making up numbers that are undeliverable.

We have made a commitment to increase cultural funding by £100 million. We committed to doing that by more than £15 million this year, and we have done so. We have confirmed the aim for the forthcoming year for that to be in the order of £25 million. That is exactly what I am intent on persuading my colleagues to deliver. Subverting the budget process by not doing that on the basis of what we actually know the financial situation to be is not a credible description of the budgetary process within which we have to operate in a parliamentary democracy.

I have.

I have persuaded my colleagues of the order of the increase in funding that is required; I have persuaded colleagues of the allocation for this current financial year; and I made the case last year, too, as confirmed in the speech by my finance secretary colleague—I will read it out again for colleagues who might not have heard it. She said:

“Our aim is to increase arts and culture investment in 2025-26 by at least a further £25 million.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2023; c 15.]

My job is to make sure that we do more than “aim” for something. Every fair-minded person knows that, when you have made a commitment to a significant increase and when you have said that you hope to be able to do it as quickly as possible, to say that you aim to do it is a noble and worthy thing. However, there is a difference between that and making a financial allocation in a budgetary process.

That is what I want to ensure that we have as part of the budget for next year. In due course, I will argue for the further steps in the increase to £100 million, but there is no way round the normal budgetary process. As we know, Scottish Government budgets are presented to the Scottish Parliament after UK Government budgets, because our financial situation is subordinate in devolution. It is one of the great shortcomings of being beholden to another place to make what we hope are good decisions.

I hope that the UK Government budget provides the means for us to be able to deliver—I really do—and I call on the UK Government not to continue with the austerity agenda that it has inherited, but unfortunately it looks set to do so. However, for clarity, I point out that, in contrast to the rest of the United Kingdom, we are increasing culture spending in Scotland. Spending is going up under this Government in Scotland; it is going down right now under the new and current UK Government; and it is going down right now in Wales under a Labour Government there. Here in Scotland, culture funding is going up.

Would I wish it to go up more quickly? Absolutely. Am I trying to do everything that I possibly can to make sure that we reach the commitment of an additional £100 million by 2028-29? Absolutely. We have started to do that; it is happening; funding is going up; and multiyear funding is coming. However, the resources need to be found, and they need to be voted through in Parliament. That will require all of us to vote for them. All of us have—I assume—suggested thus far that they are supportive of having the additional means, but if we wish to have those additional means, we will have to vote for them.

The Scottish Government’s position is that we wish to have multiyear budget settlements in the UK. At present, we are trying to disburse Government funds on a multiyear basis but with a lack of clarity from the UK Labour Government, which is taking three times longer than its predecessors did to give any clarity whatsoever on the budget.

Having multiyear clarity would be a good thing, and that would allow us to allocate the funds. However, we should not be blown off course from understanding how things actually are. I am an optimist about the trajectory of recovery for the culture sector. Why? It is because we have acknowledged the scale of the challenge, and I think that there is agreement that the scale of the challenge is financially what the Government has committed to. I have committed to that a number of times in giving evidence to the committee, before now and again today. That is the aim of what we want to commit to as soon as we can. If we do that, I am confident that the funding of culture will be in a better place.

If UK Governments want to make the devolution settlement work better, we require things to happen on a multiyear basis, or, de minimis, we require a budget to be produced quicker than the incoming UK Labour Government is doing—that would be of huge assistance. Taking three times as long as all predecessors does not contribute to improving the budget process.