Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I was making the point that the biggest single challenge is working out which proposals have direct relevance for us here in Scotland.

I will make something up about Greek olives. We do not need to have a position on Greek olives in Scotland, and we are not in the European Union. Therefore, I can confirm that I will not be making proposals in the Scottish Parliament about Greek olives.

I am not aware of anything that would require significant change. We will need to have clarity—I do not think that this a contentious point—from the UK Government on the legislative mechanism, on the form of the legislation and on how we as a Government and as a Parliament can feed into the process of legislation that would then lead to an agriculture, food and drink agreement between the UK and the European Union.

We are having a very open dialogue. Next week, I am in London, and I will raise the issue with the UK Government then. I will also be raising it at an interministerial meeting with the UK Government in December. We want to work with the UK Government. I think that this is a shared priority for most parties and most members of the Scottish Parliament; it certainly is for the Scottish Government.

Where there is a will there is a way. An agreement would be hugely beneficial to the Scottish economy, which has suffered because of Brexit, to the agricultural sector, which has suffered because of Brexit, and it will be good for our food and drink sector, which has suffered because of Brexit. We can all play an active part in delivering that during this session of the Scottish Parliament and the current UK parliamentary term.

I definitely share President Macron’s view that there is a challenge to the European democratic mainstream, which is not what Mr Kerr went on to say in reflecting Mr Macron’s views on the challenge to politics in Europe. Countries such as France and, increasingly, Germany—and one might even say the United Kingdom—are facing an ever growing challenge from the populist right, which is calling into question our democratic institutions, including those of member states at a European level and multilaterally, at a world level.

I think that President Macron is right to make sure that all mainstream political parties and voices think about how, whether as independent states or as part of wider communities such as the European Union, we make sure that we are fit for purpose and making decisions as best we can.

Of course, the challenge for us in Scotland is that we are not part of that. We are outside, so we cannot make these points directly at the Council of Ministers. We do not have a nominee sitting on the Commission that is able to make the—

Well, that is my point, Mr Kerr—

The problem for Mr Kerr is that I disagree with him, so I—