Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will go back to Mr Bibby’s point briefly. His question is a really good one. I will give him an example of a very current area that he knows about, because I have spoken to him this week.

Let us take broadcasting as an example from the creative sector. We have worked on a cross-party basis to make sure that public service broadcasters are commissioning everything that they can and should in Scotland, given that we pay a licence fee. In recent weeks, we should all have been given reason to question whether the system is working. Is television commissioning in Scotland’s screen sector supported in the way that we have been told it should be, and does it have safeguards for supporting jobs in the sector?

A good example of why there has been a difference in employment levels is the massive concentration of screen and TV in London and the south-east of England, although there have been moves to correct that. The Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland agreed, the English regions agreed and the BBC has agreed. That is why the BBC moved to Salford and why it says that it is trying to commission elsewhere.

I know that the committee is looking at that issue, but that is a good example of why there is a differential, and why there is a real prize in getting it right so that there is a smaller differential and so that we grow the creative sector as much as possible.

I have said to Mr Bibby that I will write to him, because I know that it is an important subject.

I agree with Mr Kerr that it is important that we appreciate how important philanthropy and corporate sponsorship are to culture and the arts in Scotland, as they are elsewhere. There are recent examples that should give us all cause for concern. For example, I am concerned that children from deprived backgrounds might not be able to take part in the likes of the Edinburgh book festival, as they were previously, because funding has been reduced.

This is all a matter of public record, but Mr Kerr has asked me specifically about what can be done. There are things that can be done and I am keen to explore some of them this year. We might get some helpful insights and advice on the area from the forthcoming review. I will certainly share my views with Dame Sue Bruce.

It is not illegitimate for people to want to know that the financial support for events is contributed by ethical providers and to ask how companies make their money. At the same time, it is important that we are protective, helpful and supportive of the arts sector so that its income is not undermined, as it has been. The challenge is in striking a balance between those two things.

I am happy to discuss that further with Mr Kerr, because I already have some ideas, but now is not the time to share them. I am seized of the issue and it cannot go on like this. A lot of the commercial organisations that have been tremendous supporters of arts and culture, such as Baillie Gifford, want to be able to support culture and the arts, and I want them to be able to do it. At the same time, I also want to make sure that, if there are ethical considerations that we should reflect on, we find ways of doing that without undermining culture and the arts. There is no doubt that the conversation is to be continued.

Good morning to you, convener, and to committee members, especially any new or substitute members. It is nice to see you all.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to open our discussion with some reflections on what I have heard from the organisations that gave further evidence to the committee last week and from colleagues, particularly from members who took part in Tuesday’s debate on valuing culture. I have listened to and read those responses with great interest and have also listened to the views of the many and varied culture stakeholders that I have had the opportunity to meet since the Scottish Government’s draft budget for 2025-26 was published in December.

It is clear to me that, although the proposed significant increase of an additional £34 million for Scotland’s culture sector in 2025-26 has been warmly welcomed by many across the sector and underlines this Government’s on-going commitment to strengthening it, we will not achieve all that we want to achieve together for culture in a single year. However, the budget is a significant milestone and, if supported by parliamentary colleagues, will take the Scottish Government halfway towards meeting our forward commitment of at least an additional £100 million annually for culture by 2028-29.

I would add that our aim for 2026-27, subject to the normal budget processes, is to deliver a further £20 million increase for the sector. I hope that my opening remarks will provide a level of confidence for the committee as well as the sector with regard to the longer-term trajectory of the Scottish Government’s commitment to invest in culture.

The Scottish Government’s budget is transformational for the culture sector in Scotland and could not be clearer about our steadfast support for Scotland’s arts and culture. It will enable us to continue funding initiatives such as the youth music initiative and Sistema. The additional funding will provide a package of support to the culture sector as a whole, including a significant funding uplift and multiyear settlement for Creative Scotland, giving it the means to offer regular funding to the biggest ever number of cultural organisations across Scotland.

The draft budget will enable the development of a culture and heritage capacity fund for the organisations that would benefit most from tailored supportive funding and guidance to help build their capacity and develop their future resilience. There will be increased funding for our national collections, the centre for design and the national performing companies to support their work, which is so important to our local communities, as well as being of international significance.

The draft budget will also double the funding available for Scotland’s festivals and ensure that more festivals beyond the central belt receive the support that they need to reach their full potential. There will also be an increase for Screen Scotland’s successful production growth fund, which will help attract international investment and encourage large-scale productions to choose Scotland because of our incredible locations, our studio and post-production facilities and our talented crews.

If passed, the draft budget for 2025-26 will support other important of areas of work, such as community access to culture, improving Scotland’s cultural exports and exchange and improving access to Scotland’s vital public libraries. Those plans for increased investment will be delivered alongside a commitment to reform the funding mechanisms for the culture and arts sector. We want to help the culture sector maximise the impact of every penny of public funding and to support it to work more closely with the private and third sectors to grow the overall funding pot for culture, diversify funding streams and become more sustainable and resilient.

In the recent programme for government, we announced a review of Creative Scotland as part of wider considerations of how the culture sector is supported. That review will ensure that the additional funding coming to the culture sector can be used to best effect.

I recognise that it is essential that the culture sector has an opportunity to input into the review, and at the start of the week, the Scottish Government launched a short survey to inform its scope. Members will know that, during the debate on culture in the chamber on Tuesday, I invited colleagues to take part, and I would encourage as many people who work across the culture sector as possible to respond. I should also say that the Scottish Government announced this week that Dame Sue Bruce will be appointed as the chair of the independent review of Creative Scotland, with a view to providing recommendations at the end of the summer.

I know that the pressures of meeting what are often significant capital infrastructure needs, along with pay settlements and inflationary pressures, have not gone away, and that many of our publicly funded culture bodies are continuing to grapple with those issues. Through our on-going work on public service reform, we are supporting our national culture bodies to work collaboratively and think creatively to come up with solutions to some of those challenges.

That approach has already yielded some positive outcomes. For example, we have agreed a revised framework document with Historic Environment Scotland that provides it with greater financial freedom to manage its commercial income. As part of that agreement, HES will reduce its dependency on public funding for its operational budget as commercial income continues to grow. This is the first year of that agreement, with a £2 million reduction in public funding as part of a five-year plan to reduce public funding by £10 million. Those greater freedoms will mean that HES will for the first time be able to invest every penny of its commercial income in protecting our historic environment for future generations, mitigating the impact of climate change, improving visitor experiences and delivering for Scotland.

It is that spirit of innovation, confidence and self-determination that is at the heart of the planned budget increase for culture in the next financial year. Facilitating an expanded multiyear funding offer from Creative Scotland will enable more of our creative people to worry less about funding and focus more on their creative practice. I look forward to working with the committee and members across all parties to make our collective ambition for a flourishing culture sector in Scotland a reality through support for the budget bill in the coming weeks.

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.