Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for the question—there was a lot in there. I understand that everybody who cares about the culture and arts sector wants the maximum financial support as quickly as possible. I get that. I do not think that anybody would not understand why there is that demand. Incidentally, it is not unhelpful for colleagues in the arts and culture sector to underline why it is important to get those resources as quickly as possible. Having said that, any fair-minded person with an understanding of the wider budget constraints would see not only that we have secured a commitment to a very significant uplift within a short number of years—while other portfolio areas are seeing cuts and decline because of the budgetary constraints—but that the situation is favourable in respect of comparative Administrations.

This morning, I had a look at the Welsh Government’s budget lines in such areas, which include the Arts Council of Wales being cut by 8.7 per cent; the National Museums of Wales being cut by 6.3 per cent; Creative Wales, which is the equivalent of Creative Scotland, being cut by 9.9 per cent; and Cadw, which is the Welsh equivalent of Historic Environment Scotland, being cut by 19.7 per cent. We are in a very different situation, because we have a First Minister, a Deputy First Minister and a finance secretary who were persuaded that we need a significant change to the trajectory that we would have continued on were we to have a flat budgetary settlement or a reduction in budget such as we are seeing in Wales or from the UK Government, given the 6 per cent cut to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s budget.

In Scotland, by contrast, the Scottish Government has made a commitment to a significant uplift in funding, has set out a road map of how we want to get there, has made the first commitment for this year and has given an additional commitment for next year of an uplift of an additional £25 million on the way to there being a sustained annual increase of £100 million.

On Mr Cameron’s point about having a sense of priorities within that increasing spending envelope, I have tried to outline my priorities in my opening statement and what I think should be the north star, or the stars that we should be trying to align with as we increase funding, including external funding. We have the intention of the £100 million rise, the rise of over £15 million this year and the commitment to an additional increase of £25 million next year, on top of that £15 million, but, as Mr Cameron knows, we do not budget three or four years ahead. Given everything that we have been talking about in terms of multi-year funding, there is a tension in that, is there not?

I wish to signal my ambition that culture and arts organisations, whether they come within the ambit of Creative Scotland as regularly funded organisations or are national performing companies and national collections, need to have an understanding of what the financial horizon is more than one year in advance. I am very open to thinking about how we can provide that. That underlines the point that I was making, and I would welcome the committee’s input into thinking about how we do that.

We have a relatively blank canvas in relation to the additional funding once we get through the sustained phase—the changes in Creative Scotland’s multi-year funding and the immediate, existential challenges that we have seen to a number of organisations and venues that we were able to safeguard through this year, which has ensured that increased pay settlements in a time of inflation are fully met. Once we are able to move beyond that sustained phase and into the developmental and innovative phase, I want to work in partnership with the sector, the committee, individual MSP colleagues and political parties. I have had meetings with a number of colleagues on that subject.

I do not think that it is for me to say what my plans for year 3 are regarding individual projects before we have the architecture of the next phase, which will involve increased funding, reformed institutions and a reformed approach by the Government and our agencies to how we do things. That will give us an exciting opportunity to be extremely supportive and helpful to the arts and culture sector, because those who work in it deserve it, they should have it and they know that they will have it from me and the Government that I serve in.

Sorry, but can I stop you there? I have just said that it is £25 million in addition to the £15 million-plus that is being committed in this budget, so it is £40 million-plus.

I totally understand the question that Mr Bibby is asking and that is being asked by people in the wider culture and arts sector who, understandably, want maximum resource as quickly as possible in order for the sector to thrive.

However, we need to understand the budgetary constraints that the Scottish Government is operating under and the relative priority that has been attached to culture and the arts. Therefore, in comparison with, and in contrast to, other Governments in the United Kingdom, we are increasing culture spending. That is important not just as a down payment on the significant increase that has been committed to for culture and the arts; given the actual cuts that are taking place elsewhere, it gives Creative Scotland, among others, the significant means to help us through the sustain period.

Do I acknowledge that there are venues and organisations that will continue to be in financial distress and that will require support over the coming financial year before additional funding is in place? Yes, I do. Can Government and Government agencies do more? Yes, absolutely. Having said that, let us look at specific examples of venues or events—some are in the public realm and some are not—that have had significant support from Creative Scotland or Screen Scotland. Let us look at the Filmhouse or the Edinburgh International Film Festival and others; let us look at the support that we are providing to V&A Dundee. We are intervening, whether as the Scottish Government, Creative Scotland, Screen Scotland or other agencies, to try to get through this sustain period. I am absolutely focused on our being able to do that.

Would I, as cabinet secretary, like to have the additional £100 million in the coming financial year? Yes, absolutely. However, we have been able to secure additional culture funding while other Governments have been cutting it. We have secured additional commitments from the Government on what will be provided next year as cumulative additional support for culture and the arts and I will work tirelessly—as will my officials, Creative Scotland and other agencies—to make sure that we get through this sustain period where there is financial distress, until we are in a position with additional funding but also a renewed approach to culture and the arts, administratively and, yes, financially, to ensure that it is thriving, as everyone hopes that it will.

Speaking for myself, I find it very hard to understand why we do not have national sporting matches—in this case, football—on our public broadcasters. I cannot understand why that is not the case. Why do people need to subscribe to channels that they have never heard of and pay money to watch their national team perform, particularly when it is doing as well as it is? It is beyond me. The difference in the BBC’s approach to the coverage of England, in particular, is there for everybody to see. Why is that? I do not understand that. I say that as the cabinet secretary for culture—sport is an important part of our national culture.

Frankly, it behoves our public sector broadcasters to look at the coverage of our national sports and to ask why we would treat one nation in the UK differently to others in that respect. I think that we know the reason for that, but to me that is not an excuse for ignoring the coverage of Scotland football matches.

On the point about relief in the sector that we are turning a corner in funding, a significant number of people in the sector have been very kind about the fact that we have been able to secure increased funding for culture while, unfortunately, because of budgetary constraints, that is not the situation elsewhere, in other parts of Government. I am grateful for the support of people in the sector in being able to make their case. It is important that we do everything in our power to ensure that the sector thrives.

On the difference between sustaining and developing, Ms Forbes echoes a point that Donald Cameron made at the previous evidence session that I attended, about organisations that may perform a very important community role but that might not be on a trajectory to be financially self-sustaining. Such organisations may clearly have an important community or wider role to be supported.

I am very alive to this point. There is, indeed, a tension between sustaining what matters—which may or may not be self-sustaining or profitable in a budgetary sense—and developing the sector writ large. I underlined this point in my opening statement, and I am trying to find the wording that I used. I am very keen—as, I know, Creative Scotland is—to consider how we can help cultural and arts organisations to build in the resilience, financial sustainability and, importantly, capacity that they need to thrive.

We can do a lot more of that, because it is different from what Skills Development Scotland or Scottish Enterprise might offer in the wider economy. However, given the experience that we have gone through with the changing nature of society and its interaction with the culture and arts sector, we need to help the sector to manage its room for success more effectively. We need to think anew about how we make that happen. That is where joining up our financial capabilities and additional funding streams will be the answer to Ms Forbes’s conundrum.

I have just confirmed, again, that it is cumulative, so it is just over £40 million additional.

I have now said this three or four times, I think, so there should be no doubt about the clarity of the commitment that has been given about the additional £100 million. However, in terms of the route to get there, we are talking about £15.8 million in this budget and an additional £25 million in the following one—so that will be an additional £40.8 million—and then, in the two years after that, the numbers will be dependent on the budget discussions that take place in the usual way.

If I think back to previous discussions, there was a sense of doubt from some colleagues about whether this is a real thing. It really is a real thing. It is not an aspiration. In comparison to other Governments in the United Kingdom, including Labour-run Wales, which has cut its culture funding, we have increased it. Unlike the UK Government, which has cut culture funding this year, we are increasing it.

We have given the commitment—the Deputy First Minister did it in the budget statement—on the £25 million additional in the financial year 2025-26. As soon as I can, I would want to be able to confirm what the subsequent years will deliver.

I totally understand that the sector wants the front loading of funds. It is what I want—absolutely. It is what I argue for internally, and I want this to happen as quickly as possible. It is correct to say—and Iain Munro is absolutely right to say—that what we are able to do this year is very much within the sustain phase of the culture and arts recovery. As we are able to secure the additional cumulative totals that will boost the culture and arts scene, we will be able to support the sector in a much more significant way to develop and innovate.

First, that is not a sensible suggestion, given that a majority has been elected to the Scottish Parliament with a mandate to pursue Scotland’s independence. Secondly, in the grand scheme of the budgets that we are talking about, the amount is minute and it would make absolutely no serious contribution whatsoever to the scale of the funding challenge that we have as devolved Scotland. If that is the limit of ambition in relation to being able to reallocate money and deliver public services in Scotland, we are in real trouble.

I have always taken the view that it is really important to try to understand the perspectives of different people in different organisations. In this case, I see Creative Scotland demonstrating the demand in the culture and arts sector. If you ask organisations in that sector, “How much money would you like, in an ideal world?”, you will get a massive total, and what that illustrates for an organisation such as Creative Scotland is that it would like the maximum possible funding settlement. I understand that—that is what it wants. I understand that, whether it be Creative Scotland, individual organisations, venues or whatever, people who are receiving support either directly from the Government or through agencies need to illustrate the extremity of the situation as a way of securing support—and the situation is, indeed, very challenging.

The first thing that I would like to say, then, is that I understand why Creative Scotland and its board members are very keen to ensure that they have the funding to get through the massive change programme required for multiyear funding. That is why I was very empathetic in my opening statement and in my answers to the committee’s initial questions about what is being done at present. I work very well with Iain Munro and colleagues at Creative Scotland; I work very well with Isabel Davis and colleagues at Screen Scotland; and I can say the same for Historic Environment Scotland, our national collections and our national performing arts companies. I do not have a problem with any of that.

Is there what one might call a creative tension here, given the very nature of the process? The Scottish Government dispenses funds and organisations that receive them want as much as possible—I understand that. Given the constraints, people have wanted to gain public understanding as well as an understanding in Government of the requirement for money.

I definitely agree, though, that there is a profound lack of understanding about the extent of the financial constraint on devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom. It is unprecedented, and I have not heard a single person, whether it be a member of the Scottish Parliament, someone from an agency, a journalist or anybody else, contribute any suggestion as to where, this year, any additional means that one might want would come from. Nobody, but nobody, has come up with a suggestion on that front—not one.

This year, we have been able to make the case internally for a down payment on additional funding going forward, and no doubt everyone in receipt of funding will want to ensure that they get a part of that. I have talked at some length—and no doubt, convener, you will have me back to talk about it again—about how this new approach will work from the perspective of the Government, our agencies and beyond. We will have to be in a new place. I am working with the people in Creative Scotland and other agencies on the basis of trust and I am confident that we have a trust that is good enough to be able to deliver all that.

I said to the committee earlier that there are two particular constraints or realities around which our commitment operates; first is the reality of our devolved competence and the wider UK structures, and second is whether European Union measures have demonstrable effect. To take an easy example, we are in a country where, unless somebody can correct me, we cannot grow olives, and we do not have a wine production sector, so European Union legislation on olive growing or wine production does not have an effect. Then there are things that are obviously within devolved competence, have demonstrable effect here and do not have a disadvantage. Around those realities, consideration needs to be given as to what we are doing.

Were we in the European Union, the situation would be entirely different, because everything would be, from a legislative standpoint, part of a treaty obligation and a requirement to ensure that one fully integrates the entire corpus of EU law. We have already inherited 47 years’ worth of that in Scotland.

Ms Forbes’s point is absolutely correct. There is not a 100 per cent read-across, notwithstanding the commitment to remain aligned. However, for anybody who understands how the European Union works and the fact that we are now not in the European Union, there will be areas that require, because they do not have direct impact on us, or because of the nature of the devolved settlement and how that works, a caveat—if one wants to call it a caveat—around appropriateness and possibility.

I have written down a few of those, and they are there for a reason, which is that we will not incorporate things that have no impact here or where the constraints are such that we cannot. That should not detract from the fact that, in the main, we will do exactly that which we have intended to do, which is to remain aligned.

George, do you wish to add anything from an administrative point of view, as somebody at the sharp end of making the decisions?