Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am delighted by Mr Stewart’s welcome for the additional funding, because we all have a role to play in helping to give the sector confidence about where we are going and how we are going to get there. The challenge of making that happen as expeditiously as possible, so that it is in alignment with strategies, plans and ambitions, is absolutely at the heart of where my thinking is. There is no doubt that I will be back before the committee and I will be asked repeatedly about all that.

There is always a question about matching strategies and plans with the ability to deliver on that trajectory. One would have to have had one’s head in the sand to not understand that devolved Government is, this year, in the most distressed financial situation since the beginning of devolution. This is not a uniquely Scottish situation. My Welsh colleague or my Northern Irish colleague, were there one in place at the present time, would say exactly the same thing. Short of opening up a discussion about UK funding and the ability of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Executive to deal with spending constraints—which is not the role of this morning’s meeting—we have to deal with the constraints that we have.

Although, as I have said a number of times, I totally understand people saying that they need at once the funding that has been committed to, all fair-minded people who realise that we are one of the limited areas of Government that has been able to secure additional funding will appreciate that the down payment has been made on that additional funding, and that I will be working night and day to make sure that we maximise the committed funding as quickly as we possibly can. We want to deliver on these strategies and plans, and on the ambition that we all have to have a thriving culture sector.

Mr Stewart, like Mr Bibby earlier, is absolutely right to say that it is only by partnership working with local government, the agencies that are involved and other partners that we can ensure that there is no misalignment. I am confident that we can do that. There is enormous goodwill out there. There is a very good working relationship between Government, its agencies and the sector. There are regular round-table discussions and meetings. We are very well informed about what people’s needs, interests, concerns and expectations are.

We also work very hard to ensure that we understand where there is financial distress and to work out where we could and should intervene to ensure that we are sustaining the culture and arts footprint in Scotland. We are also moving on to the next stage of how we can help people to succeed.

I am grateful for the welcome. I agree that we want to make sure that we have the funding to match the ambition. There have been very public commitments made by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, the finance minister and me. I gave commitments to the committee and I have fulfilled them for the forthcoming financial year in relation to Creative Scotland—doubt was cast on that happening. I am delighted that we are delivering exactly on the commitments that we gave. In exactly the same way, we will deliver on the commitments that we have made to the uplift in culture spending.

I want to go beyond that. Forgive me if I have already told this vignette, but I met last summer with the Danish culture minister—my opposite number—and we talked about the funding of culture in Denmark. He talked about the significant amount of funding that is allocated by Government. He then went on to talk about the amount of money that was disbursed across the arts and culture sector through foundations. In Denmark, the law says that companies of a certain size have to have a foundation, and they have a requirement to support, among other things, culture and the arts. Large Danish companies, such as Carlsberg or Maersk, have foundations that support culture and the arts. The amount of money that they are able to inject in addition to Government resources is eye-watering. That is why I mentioned in my opening statement that we need to look at other countries and places that have well-established ways of making sure that one is fulfilling strategy, plans, ambitions and all the rest of it, as quickly as we can.

I have said before and I will say again that people should please share any ideas that they have with the committee, me, officials, Creative Scotland and others. There is an open door; we are in this together. It is the country’s culture and arts sector. Government does not do culture, but it has the ability to help, support, convene and finance it. We will do as much as we can, but there is co-ownership in making sure that, together with the sector, we are in the place that we want to be.

No. One of the things that I am optimistic and upbeat about is that, given where we have come from—the committee has taken a considerable amount of evidence on that from across the culture sector, which has illustrated the challenges that there have been because of Covid, Covid recovery, the wider economic situation and, yes, past flat budget settlements, in some cases—there is a sense that we need to reimagine how we should approach our support, which is something we agree, across the parties, that we need to do.

That is why I am very keen that we take this opportunity not simply to ask how we are going to use the additional money that is coming and whether we are simply going to apply more resource to support organisations as we have done up until now, but to ask whether we can think in new ways about getting additional resources and whether there are additional ways in which we can support projects that it has not yet been possible to fund.

Forgive me, convener, and tell me to stop if I have made this point to the committee before—I am not sure whether I have. We have organisations—Creative Scotland is at the front of the queue—that have a very talented workforce that assesses projects, organisations and venues for funding. Because of the funding envelope, in certain years, Creative Scotland will be able to fund some but not all those organisations. That is not because there are unworthy of support or venues are unworthy of investment; it is because one has to operate within a funding envelope.

However, in effect, that means that a due diligence process has been gone through that says, “Yes, these are really, really good projects; they just don’t work financially this year.” Therefore, if additional funding can be brought in from elsewhere, why should we not take another look at how the culture infrastructure in Scotland can be supported in areas where there are city deals, at whether the money has been drawn down, at whether there are projects that might fall into the ambit of those deals that have not done so yet, at whether we can support that and at whether we should do more? I am absolutely keen for us to take a look at that—and I am delighted that Penelope Cooper is taking notes. We want to be as imaginative as possible.

I have said this in the chamber and I will say it again, because the outside world, and particularly the sector, is looking: I want to work with people across the committee and across the Parliament, because there is no monopoly of good ideas or common sense.

Regarding suggestions of where additional funding might come from, we have spoken at the committee in the past about the percentage for the arts scheme, the visitor levy and philanthropy. City deals also fall into that basket from which additional support might be available. We must not allow projects to fall by the wayside from one year to the next. We have organisations that do the due diligence and the work on the culture and arts side, as well as in the heritage sector. As committee members know well, we are trying to protect our built and natural heritage, of which we have a lot in Scotland. We are trying to repair and restore many buildings, and there are people who want to support that effort. There are funding streams that can potentially do that, too.

We have an opportunity to think anew. I do not think that we can just carry on as before, so it behoves us all—the Government, Creative Scotland, Historic Environment Scotland and Screen Scotland—to think about how we are doing what we are doing. We should be thinking about what we should be doing more of and what we might do less of or do differently, and now is absolutely the right time for all of us to be thinking in those terms.

First off, Edinburgh has a deserved reputation as the festivals capital of the world, and not just because of the decades of festivals that we have had in Scotland’s capital city since 1947. We have seen a growth in the festivals from what was originally just the Edinburgh international festival to the festival fringe and then a further raft of amazing book festivals, children’s festivals and film festivals—I could go on—and I think that it is absolutely right to match the challenge of the question whether we support and fund world-class festivals with the same ambition as those who run them.

That is why I said in my opening statement that one of my key priorities relates to festivals. The question is: are we doing everything we can for them—and here I am quoting myself—to “continue to be world class and contribute to our economy and international reputation”? Is there more that can be done? Absolutely. Mr Cameron will understand that, in relation to the point that has been made by the Edinburgh Festival Fringe Society, the fact is that it did not secure regularly funded organisation status from Creative Scotland some time ago. Without wanting to labour the point too much, I have to say that I have always been very cautious about getting involved in individual Creative Scotland funding decisions. However, given that I am signalling that I want us to be thinking about all of these things as we move forward, we have to match our ambitions as a Government, as political parties and as parliamentarians with those of the organisations themselves.

After all, what has changed in recent decades is not just the festivals here, but festivals elsewhere. Edinburgh garnered its international reputation in significant part because it was among the first to have such festivals, but there are other cities in other countries that have tremendous festivals, too. That is a good thing, but we need to do everything we can not to rest on the laurels of seven decades of heritage and history and ensure that we are able to support our festivals. Indeed, I am talking not just about our Edinburgh festivals; as I have pointed out, we have tremendous festivals in our other great cities as well as the rest of the country, and we must ensure that they are properly funded and supported in a number of other ways.

There are other ways in which Government can support these things. I have said to the committee before that I am very keen for our international network—whether it be Scottish Government offices or, wider than that, our Scottish Development International or VisitScotland presence or GlobalScot network—to play a much more active role in promoting our culture sector internationally. That will benefit the festivals, too.

It is in addition to the £15 million-plus in this budget. It is cumulative. What we are saying is that, every year, the funding will be in addition to the money that was committed in the previous year. The figure, therefore, will be £40 million-plus.

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.