Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not know as much about this as I would like to know, but, from the opening comments, it seems that the big question is about where we go from here. If there is no pre-made plan based on ideology or whatever else for where we should go, surely we should take a pragmatic approach by thinking about how things that are not currently working could work better. Irene Oldfather made the point that the situation is likely to change over the course of the year, but surely it is about trying to deal with the pressure points and friction points. That is my suggestion.

I am happy to offer this advice for no fee whatsoever. [Laughter.] A sure-fire way to increase the BBC’s viewership figures is to address the absurd situation that we have in Scotland whereby we cannot see free-to-air international football matches, especially competitive ones, that involve our national team but can see matches from other countries. Would the BBC support the designation of international Scottish football matches as part of what are called the crown jewels?

I do not think that there is a shared understanding in the sector of the financial pressures—or in this committee, either, by the way. As for the examples that have been mentioned, I would just note that the last one, about Denmark, came up at a previous meeting when I asked representatives of the sector to come back with meaningful comparisons, not with independent countries, which have fewer constraints on their budgets, but with devolved Administrations. I should say that, so far, I have had no response from the sector to my question.

You have mentioned the constructive relationships with different partners in the sector, but I am not sure that I have seen that with Creative Scotland. Perhaps I can get your view on a couple of points. First, as I mentioned last week to Creative Scotland, I attended an event with the culture minister just before Christmas at which the Creative Scotland representative felt it necessary to publicly lambast the Scottish Government to the hundreds of people who were attending the meeting. I would also note the contrast between the press release that was put out by Creative Scotland on what it termed the £6.6 million cut—which as we now know is for backfilling a shortfall in national lottery funding—and the fact that its reinstatement last week was passed with virtually no comment. I think that there is a real issue with Creative Scotland’s approach to the Government.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will say that the relationship is very constructive, but all I will say is that that is not the evidence that I have seen. Is he aware of any tensions with Creative Scotland?

The total expenditure in the UK is around £6 billion, more than a third of which is raised from sources other than the licence fee. What is the equivalent figure for Scotland for money raised from sources other than the licence fee?

I will make one last point. The table that we have says that the spend as a percentage of the licence fee collected is 86 per cent. You referred to that figure. You also mentioned the fixed costs for nation-based organisations, about which the committee heard previously when it asked about Wales. If the nations are smaller, the spend gets to be larger. Given that there is a premium, if you like, to deliver services in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, the 86 per cent figure seems quite small. It is less than 100 per cent of the licence fee collected and includes the premium that you have to pay. Is that a matter of concern and are you looking to address it?

I understand what the cabinet secretary is saying but, from my point of view, the idea of trust, consistency and honesty on the part of Creative Scotland is an issue.

My second point relates to the cabinet secretary’s point about new sources of finance. I raised the issue of innovation, which I have not seen much evidence of, except for the V&A in Dundee. I was assured that it would get back in touch with ideas, and some of those have come back in, to be fair—I have yet to read them.

I know that time is very short so, rather than ask a question about that, I will very cheekily ask the question that I asked the BBC earlier. Does the Scottish Government support the allocation of the status of crown jewels to the carrying of live Scottish national football matches in Scotland?

I expect that it is, but, for the committee, in trying to come to an idea about the fairness of the apportionment of funds, it is an important figure. If it is not possible for you to give it just now, it would be useful to have it subsequently.

In my experience, there has never been a time when there has been such widespread concern about the output of the BBC and other broadcasters. Increasing numbers of people, including young people, are not paying their licence fee. It is not just young people—I am thinking about my mum. That is bound to have an impact. Part of the issue is related to what those people perceive to be the nature of the BBC’s current affairs output. This week, we have seen reference to the fact that the BBC’s “The Nine” programme could have as few as 200 viewers. I do not know whether that is true, but it has certainly been reported on social media. There are real concerns about that. In recent times, the director general of the BBC attended a meeting of Conservative MPs at Westminster. Can we, in this Parliament, expect a similar kind of courtesy from the director general? Is it possible to have direct communication with him to raise some of those concerns?

It was not so much about the committee. The meeting that happened at Westminster was for a particular political party. Is that courtesy extended to all parties?

I am happy to hear from others. If anyone wants to submit any written evidence on the efforts that individual sectors are making in respect of innovative and entrepreneurial funding, it would be really helpful. I do not know whether anyone else wants to come in on those points.

I am interested in Creative Scotland’s relationship with the Scottish Government. First, I endorse the points that Mark Ruskell made about Creative Stirling, which has also contacted me, as a local MSP.

Just before Christmas, I attended an event at which the person who was there from Creative Scotland felt able to launch an attack on the Scottish Government about funding. That was given added spice for me, as I was sitting next to the culture minister at the time. In addition, the cut of £6.6 million was referred to—you might remember the apocalyptic press release about that which went out just before the committee’s previous round-table meeting.

In contrast, we hear now, and we heard in the earlier session this morning, that the fact that that money has been reinstated is pretty meaningless. In fact, someone in the earlier session said that it will not feel like “new money”, although I think that it probably will do to those parts of the Scottish budget that are being cut. I highlight the downplaying of that, and the playing up of the potential cut.

In relation to the Scottish Government, I have two questions. In response to Mr Bibby just now, you talked about the detail of the budget. It would be interesting to know what details you fear you might not get before the budget. Obviously there is a lot of discussion before the budget, and I would imagine that it will fill in most of the blanks, but maybe not. Maybe you fear that some parts of it will not be laid out for you.

Secondly, I still cannot get my head around the national lottery stuff. I have seen it referred to as a shortfall in reserves. I would like a wee explainer of the Scottish Government’s responsibilities in reinstating any shortfall, or whether the shortfall has been caused by the Scottish Government—perhaps that is the point that is being made. Perhaps you can tell me, in a way that I will understand, what is going on there regarding the relationship between national lottery funding and the Scottish Government’s obligations in that regard. In addition, I would like to hear what detail you fear that you might not get prior to the budget.