Seòmar agus comataidhean

Again, I could not agree more. As I observed in a previous answer, the scale of the funding step change that is necessary for the culture sector to thrive has been worked through and has been estimated as an additional £100 million. The Government agrees. That is why we are working towards—

I agree that the culture sector is emerging from crisis. By any objective criteria it is doing so, given the challenges for a number of organisations and venues. Obviously, not every organisation has been going through a crisis. However, the pressures have been such that there has been a collective one, from which we are in the process of emerging. I spend a lot of my time, as do my officials, ensuring that we support organisations and venues that have been confronting existential challenges, because we want them to survive. As we are able to find, allocate and disburse increased funding, we will move from the sustaining phase—which some people have described as “crisis”, and I acknowledge that for many it has been so—and emerge from it. I think that that is where we are now.

Let me be absolutely clear about the budgetary process, for anybody watching who is not aware of this. Scotland’s budget is dependent on budgetary decisions that are made by the UK Government. We do not have clarity from the UK Government about our budgetary situation, and we do not have multi-annual funding for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government—Mr Bibby knows this to be so.

I want to see more diverse income sources. That is not the yes or no answer that Mr Harvie would like on a ticket levy.

I have met representatives of the Music Venue Trust and I would like to meet them again. I said to the member’s predecessor, and I say to him now, if there are workable models that we can deliver, or which we can work with others to deliver, please talk to us about them. If there are workable models that provide venues or other organisations with sustainable additional funding, we should look at them. That is why I will not rule anything out. I will rule things in when I see workable and deliverable proposals.

I totally refute—

I totally agree. It has to be our understanding as a Government and as a Parliament, and among the political parties in the Parliament, that, if the scale of the challenge is as it has been and we are agreed that we want people to succeed right across the creative sector, we have to deliver the means for them to be able to do so. I am confident that we are emerging from the crisis that large parts of the culture sector have been operating under in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. However, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, where culture budgets are being cut by the Labour Government for England and by the Labour Government in Wales, in Scotland, funding is going up.

I know that some observers find it difficult to acknowledge that funding is actually going up in Scotland, but it is, and I am glad that it is—I want it to go up by more, and that is exactly what we aim to do.

First, as I am sure Ms Gallacher is aware, not everything that the Government does is done by the cabinet secretary or in correspondence; a lot of the work takes place between officials. The main challenge with the open fund was the issue of timescales and due diligence in relation to the disbursal of public funds.

As I have said, a review of Creative Scotland will be very useful for everybody in trying to ensure that there is maximum alignment between the budget processes of the Government and the Parliament and the budget processes of Creative Scotland and the culture sector. If any of that is out of alignment, we run the risk of people who have responsibility in one area being unable to do what they want to do because they are waiting on others to do due diligence, or for the Government or the Parliament to agree, or for the funds to be disbursed. Having the least discontinuity on those three levels is absolutely key.

Creative Scotland knew the scale of the funding that we intended, because funding does not just go out at the start of the year, it goes out at different stages of the year; I am sure committee members know that. Creative Scotland knew the scale of the funding that we had committed to disburse, because we made a commitment to an allocation of £15.8 million in last year’s budget and that is exactly what we did. The funding is in place and the open fund is open.

I would observe that Creative Scotland has had significantly more applications for funding to the open fund, which speaks to the characterisation of a number of members of the committee who have said that the scale of the demand for financial support in the sector is significant. I acknowledge that and there is no doubt that the size of the fund will be looked at in future years. The other area for the review to look at is whether, once multiyear funding has come in, it has an impact on the different funding streams, whether that is the open fund or others for Creative Scotland.

To go back to Ms Gallacher’s initial question about the way in which the Government operates, I do not do everything personally. It is officials who work on a day-to-day basis between the culture directorate and Creative Scotland and there are constant discussions about funding issues. I met representatives of Creative Scotland last week to talk about its plans for multiyear funding and our challenges around the budgetary timescale. We agreed that we want to make sure that multiyear funding can progress, that the Government can secure the funding and give Creative Scotland the certainty to be able to launch multiyear funding, and that we make sure, as part of a review, that we have the best possible alignment around our different budget processes. I am sure that the committee gets that some organisations’ budgets run from January to December, and others have different financial years.

There are a number of areas around budget, apart from the quantum of the funding that we want to have allocated. It is about the different budgetary challenges that we have as organisations, whether as a funding body, as a Government or as a Parliament. I do not think that anybody is seriously suggesting that there is a shortcut around the budget process for the Government and the Parliament. I do not think I have heard anybody say that we should do that. At the same time, we have to be cognisant that other organisations operate at different timescales.

How do we make sure that we do that in a way that is not detrimental to people in the creative and cultural communities? I am very seized of that.

On the general point about multiyear funding, there is a huge interest in the third sector as a whole in multiyear funding working. That is why, quite apart from the self-evident advantages that it would bring to the cultural sector, proving that moving from an annual funding model to a multiyear funding model is workable will be a huge prize for the third sector as a whole, and what is true in the arts sector is definitely true in the heritage sector and in the charitable sector.

The Government is definitely thinking about that. Historic Environment Scotland is in a very interesting place, because it has wanted greater freedom to determine its own budgetary circumstances, and I have agreed with that. At Historic Environment Scotland’s last board meeting, it agreed on its plan in relation to that. That is hugely interesting, and no doubt the committee may take a view on whether it wants to better understand how that operates.

Historic Environment Scotland has been very successful in dealing with the challenges that have been alluded to in relation to what has happened on an environmental basis to a lot of our historic infrastructure and in the work that it is doing to maintain and protect that. Historic Environment Scotland, from a budgetary point of view, has been given the freedom to get more income through its own efforts, and I welcome that. I am very supportive of that.

Shona Riach, do you want to add anything on that point?

I would encourage anybody with whom Mr Brown’s description chimes to get in touch, please. I spend a lot of time going to events with people from the culture and creative sector. I very much hope that people feel that I am approachable, that my officials are approachable and that we are very interested in what people have to say. If there is somebody who feels that that is not the case, please get in touch and we will do our level best to make sure that everybody’s voice is heard.

The point about cross-portfolio working is a good one. I assure the committee that it happens and I can give an example of that. This week, I took part in a cross-portfolio meeting on rural Scotland and how the Government is delivering right across Scotland. Members of the committee and other members of the Parliament have made the case that culture exists right across Scotland, not just in our urban centres or in the biggest events that often take place in cities. Events take place the length and breadth of Scotland and we need to make sure that we are supportive of that.

Another dimension to multiyear funding is that, if we and Creative Scotland can deliver on all that, it will lead not only to an increase in the number of organisations that are supported, but to a bigger footprint of cultural organisations that are funded across Scotland, which would be a good thing.

I would not expect to say this to you often in debate, Mr Stewart, but I agree with absolutely everything that you have said. Your characterisation of where the sector is and where it feels it is, the nature of the challenge and also the prize, if I can call it that, of getting this right is correct.

Would I wish progress to be quicker? Absolutely. I have seen much of the evidence that has been given to the committee. The perfect storm that has existed for the culture and arts sector here—and, incidentally, elsewhere in the United Kingdom and in other countries too—has been profound. The impact of inflation, among other things, has been asymmetrical. The impact of inflation on the arts and culture budget has been much higher than it has been elsewhere—we can read about that in the newspapers this morning, with people restoring cultural venues and theatres finding that the costs of doing so have been going up.

The nature of the challenge has been profound for the sector. The word “if” is at the heart of your question, and I really hope that we have the answer to the problem. The good news is that this significant change for a significant part of the sector—venues and organisations—revolves around multiyear funding, which is to be introduced next year. As we emerge from this time of extreme distress in the sector, we have a commitment by the Government, which I have reiterated and repeated and which I am 100 per cent committed to trying to deliver.

If we deliver that funding at the scale and at the speed that I would wish it to be at, and if we deliver multiyear funding, I think that we will be a significant way forward. When venues and organisations know that they have funding for a number of years ahead, they will be able to get on with what they want to get on with, which is being creative, rather than worrying about the bottom line. Of course, we need to take account of the bottom line, which is why we have a process for things. Predictability is the point: multiyear funding would allow organisations to know where they will be, not just for this year or at the end of the financial year, but for a number of years ahead. The good news on the applications for funding that are being made to Creative Scotland is that the creative sector has been putting in bids that are not just about keeping heads above water. To use Mr Stewart’s own words, it is about remaining constant, having long-term clarity and delivering what they want in creative terms—I believe that they can do that.

I will signal, because we have not yet touched on it, that we have been talking entirely about revenue. I am clear that, to manage to deliver on the commitments of the Government and on the trajectory, there are quite a lot of “ifs” as part of that, and in a Parliament of minorities we are all involved.

I will make the case as part of the budget process for the Government to commit the funding, but the budget will need to be passed and, without it, the resource will not be there to deliver. I do not want to create further concern, because every year, everything is subject to the parliamentary budget process. Everyone understands that, but it is pretty important. We will need to get the budget through with an added allocation, but there is an asterisk there. I am very keen not to lose sight of capital funding. There are projects that I would wish to support, but we do not have the capital funding allocation to allow us to do so at present.