Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

—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.

Well, I would—

Convener, do you require me to say for a third time that the remit of—

I have always acted.

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.

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.

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 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.

If people ever got the impression that the 2021 act was the sole route by which alignment was going to be pursued, that does not reflect the reality of the situation. However, I do not think that that is the case. As I have said, I have been back to the committee and we have had debates in the chamber about the 2021 act, the different powers and the different ways of doing things. Can we continue to explain that? Yes, we can, and we will.

The examples of specific alignment measures are relatively limited at present—they relate to a series of issues such as single-use plastics and waste water. Those may not be the issues of highest priority for the public at large and perhaps they are better understood by the areas of the economy or society that have a particular interest in environmental standards or food standards or whatever.

As more legislative proposals come forward and as we get better used to how we to use the different tools to remain aligned, I think that there will be a better understanding that we have a palette of options. We will try to pursue the best way and you will hold us to account on whether it is indeed the best way.

The 2021 act is not and never was the only way to keep pace with European Union legislation. If people have had that impression, I wish to disabuse them of it because we have more ways in which we can remain aligned, and we are using them.