Seòmar agus comataidhean

The purpose of the review is for us all to consider how the creative and cultural landscape operates in Scotland and the role that an independent arm’s-length funding body plays. I do not think that any serious players in the cultural community question the need for an arm’s-length funding body that chimes with the sector’s needs, interests, concerns and expectations in 2024. I know that Creative Scotland has done lots of really good work. I particularly acknowledge its dispersal of funds during Covid.

It is fair to say that we are making major changes through the introduction of multiyear funding and the significant increase in culture funding. Not only is funding going up in Scotland this year, but I think that I am right in saying that we are the only Government in the UK that has committed to increase culture spending on that scale. There has been no confirmation by the UK Government about any increase in culture funding in the years ahead. We must think about how we manage the increased funding so that our national institutions, our national performing companies, our festivals and other culture bodies have the appropriate administration and support for the 2020s, because Creative Scotland was set up in 2010.

I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the review or to set limits on any recommendations that might be made. The committee will no doubt hear many suggestions, and I am sure that that will play a part in the process.

We all need to acknowledge that we have—and we have had previously, in different guises—a national arm’s-length arts funding body. Committee members have asked questions about the scope of Creative Scotland’s responsibility and whether other things should be considered to be within that scope. We need to get those issues right at the same time as getting funding in place. We are beginning to head in that direction, and it is the right time to think about those things in parallel.

I absolutely can. On inclusion and engagement, I give the committee the assurance that that activity is constant and on-going. Indeed, in my opening statement, I talked about recent meetings with trade unions in the sector.

I give the example of festivals, which are just one important part of the cultural firmament. During the summer, leading members of our festivals sector expressed keenness for there to be a focused level of support from Government on what the sector does. Some people set the bar really low for what that support should be, suggesting that we should have a meeting. I said that the issue is much more important than simply having a meeting about it; it is about having a proper strategic partnership with the sector. I therefore announced the creation of a strategic partnership for Scotland’s festivals.

This is not about having more meetings or working groups that are not focused and do not have an outcome. When I am asked a question in which it is suggested that there is not enough interaction, I can point to the example of our bringing in a framework and a partnership, as we did for the delivery of large events, such as the UCI cycling world championships, which were extremely successful.

We have learned from our approach on events, and I am intending to follow that approach for the festivals sector. We are thinking about culture in the round and ensuring that we are not missing any part of the sector. That is why the conversations are significant and on-going.

I regularly say yes to meeting requests from people from across the sector, whether it is the Music Venue Trust, which has been raising issues such as ticketing and how to support music venues—some committee members will be aware of those issues. Organisations such as the Music Industries Association are in touch, asking to meet to discuss the music sector, touring and performing. I say yes to those meetings. It is really important that we have that dialogue, so that I am well advised, and colleagues in the civil service are well advised, about what we need to do.

We have an excellent level of engagement. I came into post at a time of Covid, but I was struck by the fact that we would have regular meetings that were well attended from across the sector and Scotland. If people are suggesting that they do not feel included, I encourage them to get in touch with me, because I want to hear from them directly about why they are not included, or about why they feel that they are not included, because it is important that everybody is included.

I am keen to hear good ideas wherever they come from. I feel that I am well advised. I look closely at the evidence that the committee receives from umbrella organisations, venues and other organisations. It is because we are getting good advice that we are committed to what we are doing. We are delivering on increased funding—that is happening—and we hope to be able to strengthen that through the budgetary process. I am also keen to make sure that we are delivering change for the wider cultural and arts infrastructure.

In my opening statement, I was pleased to underscore the value of culture in its own terms as well as recognising the role that it plays in wellbeing. We do not need to rehearse that in the Government or at this committee. The positive impact of culture is very well understood. We can already see excellent good practice in cultural organisations having a transformational impact on communities. Not that long ago, I spent some time with Scottish Ballet learning about what it can do through outreach and how it helps different people with their wellbeing. We need to acknowledge the level of ambition and the outreach that is happening in relation to wellbeing. We are not saying that culture having a role in wellbeing is something that should start; it is already happening, formally and informally. The question is how we maximise its potential. That is where progress is still to be made, but I know that, across Government, there is a recognition of the advantage that culture can and does give.

One thing that has been acknowledged, in particular, is the transformational role that the likes of Sistema have been able to play in a number of communities across Scotland. It was great to see Sistema performers here in the Parliament and great to see the growing level of public understanding of their talents and the transformational impacts on the communities that the musicians come from.

Could more be done? Absolutely, but we should acknowledge that a lot is happening already that others think is worth learning from, and we should not lose sight of that. Cultural decision makers in other parts of the world look to Scotland because much is happening here that is worth learning from given the excellent nature of the sector, notwithstanding the recent challenges that it has faced. Only this week, I spoke to a delegation of French cultural decision makers who were here under the auspices of the French consul general in Scotland, and who were interested to learn about the culture sector and sustainability. They were being briefed by a number of cultural organisations about what they are doing in that field.

Not only is a lot of good work being done already, but others recognise that to be so and they want to learn from what is happening in Scotland.

Good morning, all of you, and thank you for inviting me to discuss the Scottish Government’s funding for culture in 2025-26, as part of your pre-budget scrutiny. I am delighted to see some familiar faces across the table, and I extend a warm welcome to the committee’s new members and thank them in advance for their contributions to the invaluable work of the committee.

All of us are here because we are passionate supporters of the culture sector, and we value the artists, the creative producers and the cultural workers who generate so much for our local and national economies. Of course, their contribution and the value of culture go beyond mere pounds and pence. Culture and creative expression are the very essence of who we are as individuals, as distinctive communities and as a nation. Cultural participation and engagement is fundamental to the wellbeing of people across Scotland and is vital in allowing us to make meaningful connections with other nations on the world stage.

As culture secretary, I regularly speak to many of the cultural organisations that I know are ploughing a significant amount of their time and resource into responding to the challenges of the much-changed operating landscape that we find ourselves in, post-pandemic and post-Brexit. I was particularly appreciative of the recent dialogue that I had with trade union representatives from the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Society of Playwrights and Equity about how the on-going pressure is affecting their members, and I was pleased to be able to update them on the progress that the culture fair work task force is making.

I am hopeful that the new Administration at Westminster heralds a new era of collaboration across the four nations of the United Kingdom, but we cannot escape the fact that the cost of living crisis and inflationary pressures, on top of our already depleted public finances, make for a challenging fiscal outlook across the board. The Scottish Government has been forced to make significant in-year savings and do more to ensure that it can reach a path to balance in the current and successive years.

I fully appreciate that the sector is very concerned about public funding for culture and about what the immediate and longer-term future holds. The sense of uncertainty and deep frustration has been underlined in the written submissions and oral evidence that the committee has gathered to date. I thank everybody who has taken time to articulate their concerns and to share their experiences and their thoughts on what future support for the sector should look like.

From the outset, I reassure the sector and the committee that I am doing everything within my power as the cabinet secretary for culture to get the best budget settlement that I can get for culture and the arts. As we set out in “A Culture Strategy for Scotland”, the Government recognises the intrinsic value of culture and the transformational impact that it can have on people right across Scotland. That is why the First Minister restated our commitment to increasing funding for culture so that it is £100 million more annually by 2028-29. That cross-Cabinet commitment has enabled more than £15 million of additional moneys to be released to the culture sector already in 2024-25. That has included the provision of an additional £6.6 million to Creative Scotland, which has enabled it to reopen its open fund for individuals, and provision of an uplift for the bodies that care for our national collections and for our national performing companies.

Media reporting and wider speculation have fuelled fears that the plans to provide an additional £100 million for the sector may not come to fruition. However, I want to put on the record here, so that it is absolutely clear, that the Scottish Government has the utmost confidence in the culture sector and is committed to providing significantly more funding for the sector on a cumulative basis.

I believe that we have turned a corner in public funding for culture, and our aim is that the culture budget in 2025-26 will substantially increase as a second step towards fulfilling our overall funding commitment of an additional £100 million annually. As a Government, we recognise that it is absolutely fundamental that we have stable and supportive financial arrangements in place, and we remain committed to supporting the sector to fulfil its enormous potential.

The trajectory for the new Creative Scotland multiyear funding programme is positive, with the potential for many more cultural organisations to benefit. I am engaged in discussions with Creative Scotland about how best to navigate the operational challenges that are presented by the timing of the United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer’s budget statement on 30 October. Only once we have the necessary practical assurance around the Scottish Government budget for 2025-26 will we be able to set our commitments for the culture portfolio.

We will publish our budget on 4 December; it will then be subject to the normal parliamentary processes for approval. I have written, to that effect, to the chair of Creative Scotland this morning and have copied that to the committee. I understand that Creative Scotland is likely to delay announcing the outcome of the multiyear funding process until there is confirmation of the 2025-26 budgetary position. The Scottish Government will work closely with Creative Scotland in supporting the sector through that process.

It is clear, now more than ever, that we must ensure that every pound of public funding for culture is wisely invested for maximum impact in the sector, and that the support that is available from across the public, private and third sectors is enhanced where possible. In that way, together, we can strengthen culture and create the conditions for culture to thrive, which is one of the central ambitions that are set out in “A Culture Strategy for Scotland”.

As I said before, I want to ensure that the sector can sustain, develop and ultimately thrive and innovate, but it will take time, investment and dedication to achieve that. It will also require prioritisation of activity.

In the recent programme for government, the Scottish Government set out the key strategic actions that it believes will best sustain the sector in the future. That work will include a review of existing support for the sector to inform future funding models, as well as exploring other ways in which the Scottish Government can work with partners to grow the overall funding pot for culture, diversify funding streams and support the sector in ways that go beyond funding, to include, for example organisational and business support. That work will help the sector to navigate current and future challenges and to make the most of opportunities for collaborative working.

The wider review will include a full review of Creative Scotland as the main distributor of funding for the culture and creative sector in Scotland. As you know, Creative Scotland was established in 2010 as the lead body for the arts, screen and creative industries. It is important that its remit and functions are reviewed, to ensure that it is continuing to meet the needs of the culture sector in a much-altered delivery landscape. The Scottish Government is committed to continuous improvement across all our public bodies, and to maximising the impact of public sector support for the culture sector. The review is a key component of that work.

I am delighted by the number of local festivals—as well as our nationally high-profile festivals of international renown—that have expressed an interest in getting involved in the planned festivals partnership. My officials are reaching out to a number of those festivals, and to other individuals and organisations that have an interest in festivals more broadly, to shape the membership agreement of the partnership in the first instance. The partnership will support collaborative working and active learning across festivals where possible and will ensure that the full potential of all our festivals is realised locally, nationally and internationally.

The Scottish Government remains committed to improving Scotland’s public services as an investment in Scotland’s future health and wellbeing, equality and prosperity, by strengthening future support for the culture sector.

As well as the review of Creative Scotland, we are continuing our public sector reform work with Historic Environment Scotland in order to maximise income growth, and we are working with our national collections bodies to explore alternative ways of working.

We will continue to work with partners to ensure that all available public, private and third sector investment is used to deliver the maximum benefit for communities and organisations across Scotland. I look forward to working with committee members and colleagues across the chamber to realise that ambition and, which is perhaps most important, I hope that you will support our plan to increase culture funding through the parliamentary process in due course.

Again, I could not agree more; that is absolutely right. We have been advised about the scale of financial support that is required for change. I think that it was Culture Counts that estimated that it would be around an additional £100 million annually. That is the point that I made in Government and that is what has been agreed in Government and has been avowed, repeatedly, by the previous First Minister, by John Swinney and by me before the committee.

That is what we are aiming to deliver. The fact that colleagues from other political parties are reiterating the scale of the challenge and the necessity of applying the additional finance and changing the way in which finance is delivered, and delivering it sustainably, fills me with hope that we are all in agreement about what is required. I will do what I need to do in Government to make sure that we are able to deliver the increasing funding on a year-on-year basis. It will then be up to all of us as MSPs in our own parties to be persuasive about why it is important to pass a budget that does just that. I appeal to Mr Stewart and to all colleagues, especially those in other political parties, to be as supportive as they can be.

Indeed. The point that Mr Harvie makes—I welcome him to the committee, incidentally—is about how we can do that as quickly as possible, which is the key challenge. I think that we all appreciate that there are significant challenges right across public administration and there is a demand right across the public services for them to be funded as well as can be. The Government has a difficult job in trying to balance all of that but, in seeking to persuade colleagues, I will be making the case that we deliver on the commitments that we have made.

In her budget speech on 19 December 2023, the then Deputy First Minister, who has remained the finance secretary, Shona Robison—I printed this out because I wanted to be reminded of it—confirmed the increase of £15.8 million for this financial year, of which, as I have confirmed a number of times, more than £15 million has already been disbursed, and she went on to say:

“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.]

That is the next step change. Clearly, a significant part of that will need to go towards the multiyear funding requirements of Creative Scotland. However, by its very nature, it is multiyear funding, and if we can continue to increase it year by year, which is the Government’s intention, that is how we will be able to fund the change.

Mr Harvie might wish to intervene and say that the point is that there is more than multiyear funding and we have more organisations than will be funded by that route. There are our national performing companies, our national museums and galleries, the festivals, the youth music initiative, Sistema Scotland and so on. There will continue to be a hope and an expectation of moving from sustain to thrive, so where are the additional resources? That is why I, together with my officials and with advice from others, am trying to make sure that we get that balance right as we increase the funding going forward. Will we get that balance right? I hope so, because it is really important that we do. I have said this before, convener, but the work that you do as a committee really helps to inform the consideration that we in Government give to those relative priorities.

I will highlight one challenge in particular, because mention has been made of how we can work with a funding body on these things going forward. One of the challenges that we have objectively had in the past year is that we have been working to different budgetary timetables. If we look at the challenge that we had around the open fund, that involved Creative Scotland operating to a Creative Scotland budgetary timeline, and the same goes for multiyear funding. We have a governmental and a parliamentary timescale in which we consider budgets, and they are not in sync. If we are asking our publicly funded bodies to do a job on our behalf and we also have to, with due diligence, make sure that taxpayers’ money is disbursed responsibly, we have to make sure that we are in sync as much as we can be. I hope that that is an area where a review can advise us on how we can best do that.

If I was a creative out there who was trying to get on with being creative and keep my head above water in difficult times, I would be saying, “Please can you just get those kinds of administrative questions sorted?” I understand that, and that is one of the areas where I think that we can do better. I hope that we can do better, and I think that a review might help to give us some of the answers about how we do that.

Again, total agreement has broken out at this meeting. I totally agree with Mr Harvie’s observations. I agree first that the review is an opportunity. I genuinely view it as an opportunity to help us to better understand what Creative Scotland does well and what we need to do differently, to ensure that we are not missing out on the different parts of the creative sector. Mr Harvie alights on an important question. We have a screen sector that is responsible for the support and development of what is produced for television and for the big screen at the cinema, but not for a screen—small or large—in the games sector.

It would not be right for me to put words in your mouth, but you or any other committee member might ask whether what the games sector does—very effectively, incidentally—is not also part of the continuum of what happens for television and for the film sector, whether the skills are not transferable and whether aspects of the games sector are not the same as they are for film and television. Take the example of soundtracks. Is there a difference between the music that might be produced for the games sector and the music that might be produced for a television programme or a film? The answer is no.

Therefore, will a review look at that area? Yes, absolutely, because—I explain in case anybody who is watching the proceedings does not know this—support for film and television is within Screen Scotland, which is part of Creative Scotland, and support for the games sector is not. Support for the games sector is part of the Scottish Enterprise network. That is a historical decision—I was not around at the time—and I am sure that there was good logic for it—

I know that Mr Bibby has already been listening very closely to the past 40-plus minutes of evidence, in which I have been outlining our commitment to increase funding for the cultural sector extremely significantly; to go through a change to the way in which funding is allocated, in line with the wishes of the sector that it be done on a multi-annual basis; to embrace the opportunity to look across the creative and cultural landscape, to ensure that we have its administration in the best possible order; and to deliver on that change as quickly as possible.

Here is a challenge for us all. We cannot just wish the means—we have to vote for it. We will soon have a budget, in which I hope I will be able to secure the agreement of my colleagues in Government that we will provide an allocation for culture that is heading in the direction that everyone would want. We would all wish it to be delivered in one year, no doubt. I will try to be as persuasive as I can, but, realistically, because of the scale of increase that is required and that we have committed to, it will take a number of years to do so. Regardless of that, we will have to vote for it. If we do not pass a budget, sitting and pointing out that things have been extremely challenging and that, for many, it has been a crisis, but then not supporting the means and not voting for it, will be a real problem.

Mr Brown is absolutely right to point out the challenges on income, particularly for a lot of freelancers. He is also absolutely right that it is important that maximum clarity about increasing funding is forthcoming. To be exact—I was looking through the figures earlier to underline the point about the direction of travel in answer to Mr Bibby—we have been absolutely clear that we are committed to increasing funding in Scotland by an additional £100 million on an annual basis. If we compare and contrast the previous UK Government’s funding levels with the funding levels that are being maintained by the incoming Government, we see a 6 per cent reduction in the culture budget for England. In Wales, there is a 6.5 per cent cut to the culture budget this year, while in Scotland it is going up.

I appreciate that people want certainty, but they should know that the direction of travel in Scotland is for culture spending to go up. That has not just been committed to; it is happening, unlike elsewhere in the UK, given that the Labour Party at the UK level and the Labour Party in Wales are cutting culture budgets.

I am proud to be culture secretary in Scotland, where we are increasing culture funding and heading in the direction of a transformational shift in funding culture and the arts in Scotland. Would I wish that to happen quicker? Absolutely. Am I seeking to do it as quickly as possible? Yes. When we get there, will we be in a significantly different and better place? Yes, we will. Could we do it any quicker? If we had a multiyear funding agreement from the UK Government, we could, but we do not.

In fact, the current UK Labour Government has no intention of putting such an agreement in place, and I have heard not a single one of the Labour parliamentarians in this place argue that we should have it. However, it is self-evident that if we want multiyear funding disbursement, it would be advantageous to have multiyear clarity from the UK Government in relation to devolved budgets, given the subordinate financial nature of the devolution settlement. I ask any colleague in any party to recognise that as a commonsense solution, as we move in the direction of Meghan Gallacher's suggestion about the Government having the widest possible multiyear funding approach—which I agree would be the best thing for everybody involved.

For those watching proceedings who might view this as a slightly technical question or a question about accounting, I ask that we just imagine for a second a really small organisation—a particularly small organisation—with not a lot of people to do the paperwork, the finance and the budgeting. When we think of the transformational difference between its having to do that work every single year and its having to do it for a number of years at one go and then getting on with the business at hand—which is to be as creatively focused as it wishes to be—we see that that has to be the prize for us all.

However, I say again that, for us to do that, we have to wish the means. One can be critical and just ask, “When is a commitment not a commitment?”, even when one can see the money beginning to head in the right direction, but we need to be careful that we are not only recognising the challenge but actually doing something about it. The Government is doing so, and the Parliament will have an opportunity to do so in the budgetary process. Then, if we are supportive of the budget, as we will have to be, we will hopefully secure the means—the means that have been committed to, of course—through that budgetary process. That is how finance works in a parliamentary democracy.

I am very interested, in principle, in identifying any funding sources that might support music venues and organisations in addition to—not supplanting—public funding. I made mention of that in my opening statement. A lot more could be done in that area. We talk quite a lot about philanthropy as one income source, but there are others, including, potentially, ticketing.

The member’s predecessor on this committee asked me about the issue with great focus, and I raised it with the previous UK culture secretary. As I have alluded to, some take the view that some elements of the issue are reserved. We need greater clarity around that, along with an understanding of the ability of the devolved Administrations to work with UK Government partners to look at the likes of a ticket levy, because it is viewed as a tax.

I am trying to give the shortest answer that I can—