Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Ruskell mentions a number of key facts, one of which is the size of the portfolio’s budget relative to that for the rest of Government. Another is the fact that there are certain responsibilities within the portfolio that have wider Government benefit. He is right to say that the responsibility for major events is one of those; responsibility for the census is another. Although the census falls every 10 years, there is a significant risk of financial displacement within a small portfolio if one has such a major responsibility without necessarily having specific funding. In the past, interventions have been made to provide specific support for the likes of the census.

What the Scottish Government is doing is a really good example of its recognising the cross-Government benefits that major events can bring. There will be wider discussions about how that should be approached in future. One of the side-effects of Scotland becoming as successful as it has been in recent years with major events is that we need to think about how we do all of that. I do not think that anyone wants there to be a displacement effect within the wider portfolio, which includes, as well as culture, external affairs. To go back to Mr Cameron’s point, the culture portfolio includes our ability to project, among other things, our cultural offering to the rest of the world, so it is really important that we maintain all those different areas of the portfolio’s work so that we can do what we are trying to do to promote Scotland domestically and internationally.

No doubt, there will be conversations about how we make sure that we have a cross-Government approach to major events, but there is an acknowledgement that one of the benefits of major events working hand in hand with the culture directorate in the Scottish Government is that a lot of people in the civil service who work in culture are extremely talented in the organisation of events, whether those are cultural events or wider events that are hosted in Scotland.

There are reasons why major events work closely together with culture. The question is whether the funding model is fit for the place that we now find ourselves in, having had that good experience of major events. Since the Commonwealth games in 2014, we have seen really large, world-class events and we have the aspiration to do more. Therefore, we must make sure that we have the right mechanisms—funding is a part of that—to be able to do that.

Those are, frankly, unnecessarily pointed questions from Mr Bibby. He has been here since the beginning of the session, so he heard me draw attention to not only the inflation rate but—this is mission critical in the context of having a serious approach to funding culture—the appreciation of the additional pressure on the Scottish budget due to pay settlements worth an additional £785 million. That significant amount of money brings additional pressure to bear on the Scottish Government budget.

In reference to Kate Forbes’s question, it is the additionality of the costs of the likes of pay claims—I am not talking about inflation, which means that you can buy less—that squeezes the Government’s budget and that has the impact of displacing our ability to do everything that we would want to do. That is a really very basic public administration and finance point.

Unless somebody wants to be serious about explaining how one deals with that pressure by finding money from elsewhere, one must broach the pressures that one is having to face and deal with them. It seems to me to be eminently sensible that if one has the ability to use reserves such that one does not actually cut—that is, end—funding for organisations, that is the best course of action. If Mr Bibby would prefer to cut culture budget lines in areas where there are no reserves, he has to explain how to do that. I have not heard that from anybody thus far.

We find ourselves in circumstances that, again, any fair-minded person would acknowledge are significant and extreme. Given those pressures, where there are reserves that can deal with a situation in extremis and can then be recompensed to ensure that on-going financial and planning purposes are fulfilled, it seems that that is the prudent, sensible and sustainable decision, which we are making. If not, one is talking about ending financial support for cultural organisations, which I am not prepared to do.

There is a lot in that. The first thing is to acknowledge the scale of the hugely significant economic benefit of the culture sector. We must do all that we can to ensure that that success continues, which is about Government providing the funding that it is able to. However, it is also about creating the circumstances in which the culture sector can thrive and be sustainable on its own terms. We must ensure that there are parallel funding streams.

One of the areas that I am most optimistic about, because of its new significance to the wider economy, is the screen sector. Film festivals have been successful since their inception: we know that the Edinburgh international film festival goes back to the late 1940s. What is new is that we have moved beyond having a comparatively small-scale screen sector making occasional films, along with work at the BBC, STV and, increasingly, Channel 4 and others, to having a burgeoning wider screen sector.

We have gone from not having a single large-scale studio, despite appeals for famous Scottish actors to open them in the 1980s and 1990s, to us now having studios across the country, with more to come. As has been borne out by Screen Scotland’s report, we have got to a situation in which the value of screen—this figure is from memory, but I think that it is right—is nearly £650 million GVA, with a trajectory for it to be worth more than £1 billion by 2030. That has a massive positive impact on our economy, and we want to do everything that we can to support that. We want to make sure that that brings benefit everywhere in Scotland, and we need to embrace the opportunity that it will give for a new generation of people to find employment in those sectors.

Previously, in those sectors, we exported our talent and did not have the financial benefit of it being here. We need to acknowledge the value of—and do everything that we can to support—the established and successful parts of the cultural economy and the newer bits of the wider sector. That is a really good example of where, compared to the level of value, the intervention through Scottish Government funding—via Screen Scotland, with the likes of its production growth fund—is minuscule in comparison with the wider value that is accrued to the Scottish economy.

The challenge is to make sure that we provide funds in a way that helps sustainability, growth and new starts and, at the same time, is what is required for more established events, including festivals, at a time of change. That is exactly the kind of thing that I am interested in discussing with colleagues in the festivals sector, to make sure that things are as successful as they can be.

I accept that Scotland has an extremely high international reputation when it comes to culture. I would not want to contribute in any way to undermining that. The festivals this year have been extremely successful—it would not be right to create an impression that they have not been the success that they have. Only last week, I was sitting in a room with sizeable international participation, where all attendees were praising Scotland’s cultural sector—in that context, it was fine art and the National Galleries.

If we make a comparison with international funding, it is absolutely true that there is more that we could do in Scotland. That is why we are developing an international culture strategy to ensure that we are working together. That includes our regularly funded organisations, major festivals and cultural organisations with international outreach. Some of those are supported and funded by the Scottish Government; some are not. Some are funded to a greater extent; some are funded to a lesser extent.

We must ensure that we are doing everything that we can for Scotland’s international reach. I know that there is significant ambition in relation to touring; I accept that. I look forward to the continuation of the extremely successful touring by different orchestras and theatre companies. It is really important that we acknowledge the pressures that organisations, including festivals, are under—and I will meet the Edinburgh International Festival to discuss that soon—but we must not inadvertently find ourselves in a situation in which we undermine our international reputation. There is a balance to be struck.

Mr Brown is absolutely right to bring up the fact that the pressures that the Scottish Government bears in relation to its constrained income and constrained ability to do anything about it are matched by the constraints that the culture sector is feeling. There is inflation in general but, as I am sure that many will have told you, inflation is significantly higher in parts of the culture sector than in general. There is the impact of higher heating costs, and the list goes on for cultural organisations. That means that there is a double whammy: the ability of Government to do everything that it would like to do is constrained, and the culture sector—cultural organisations, venues and everything else—has a significantly constrained budget.

We have not even mentioned yet the impact that Covid has had, not only on the finances of those organisations but on societal attitudes towards going out, attending major events and so on. Those are massive shocks, which the Scottish Government fully acknowledges.

We are trying to do everything that we can to ensure that the funding is in place, given that extremity. Some of the organisations are in the public realm, although a great number are not but, where we can intervene, it is essential that we help as many organisations, venues, festivals and so on as we can to keep their heads above water and to thrive as we recover from Covid.

We also need to acknowledge that there are changes in the ways in which people are enjoying cultural offerings and differences in the ways in which events are planned, funded and undertaken, and we need to work with everybody in the culture and arts community during this period of change and uncertainty. We need to give as much assurance as we possibly can, which is why it is important that, when there is going to be no detrimental impact on our major arts funding body, because it has reserves to use, people hear that and we do not add to the wider concerns that people rightly have and that we need to deal with.

Nothing changes. There is no detriment. Creative Scotland will be introducing its multiannual payment system next year, so it would not be calling on its reserves right now within this financial year to deal with the change to the multiannual funding system, and it will receive the £6.6 million, which is an offset from lost income in relation to the National Lottery, so we are stepping in to help Creative Scotland. We are doing that to a greater extent than we were expected to, and we will be doing so again next year. However, on the key point of whether that will have an impact on Creative Scotland’s ability to introduce multiyear funding and to have the means at its disposal in the quantum that it was hoping for, it will make no difference. There will be zero detriment.

I think that cultural organisations are right to describe the pressures under which they are operating. We have heard about that in previous sessions and I have given evidence to you on that before. We are well aware of organisations such as the Filmhouse, Dance Base and the King’s theatre—which has had additional requirements—that have been flagging up that they are under significant financial pressure. We acknowledge that and that is why we have been working with Creative Scotland, which has been working—and continues to work—with organisations that are facing particular financial challenges.

I entirely acknowledge the evidence that has been given that there is a wish for culture to receive additional funding and, if I am able to secure additional funding for culture, that is exactly what I would like to happen. However, we also need to approach the funding and support of culture in other ways so, if it is possible for us to help in terms of commercial income to the cultural sector, we need to do provide that help and, if it is possible to secure additional support from philanthropy, we need to ensure that that is done, too. Right across the piece, we are focused on making absolutely sure that the Government provides the maximum funding that we are able to secure.

I refer Mr Bibby to our wider financial pressures. It is not as simple as saying that we would like more money and then, magically, more money appears. I think that he understands that, if we want more money for one area, it means that the cost needs to be borne elsewhere or, indeed, cuts need to be made elsewhere, so that is not a simple situation.

Having said that, I think that there is an understanding not just of the pressures that have been shared with the committee but of the significant benefit that is accrued—not least to the Scottish economy—from the creative sector. Again, the committee has received evidence of the financial benefits that are brought from festivals—as a good example—and the screen sector, when measured against the amount of money that is invested from the public purse. There is a really strong financial case, as well as a really strong wider societal case, because of the role that culture plays in social inclusion, health and wellbeing and all of the things that are key priorities for the Scottish Government. We need to make sure that we match the ambition of all of those things with the funding that we can secure in extremely pressed financial times. If colleagues on the committee—and, indeed, in other parties—have particular suggestions about how that can be best achieved, I would be pleased to hear them.

I have given the assurance to the Creative Scotland board. It has accepted my assurance, and it has been prepared to use the reserve. It has accepted my assurance; whether I can persuade Mr Bibby to accept it is clearly a different question.

It is absolutely my pledge that Creative Scotland will see the £6.6 million that it is now releasing from its reserves restored to it. I understand why that is important, for the reasons that I gave earlier in relation to multiyear funding. That is something that will go ahead next year.

I was not aware of £780—I am sorry, let me get the number right. I do not know whether Mr Bibby was aware of £785 million in additional pressures, because I was not. That has happened since the time that he refers to. Again, I make my point about fair mindedness and the acknowledgment that that is an additional and new pressure. Nobody had a crystal ball about the extent to which funding settlements would be pursued. I also draw colleagues’ attention to the fact that they have not all been resolved, so there is the potential for additional pressures above and beyond budgeted measures.

One has to make decisions on the basis of the facts as we find them now, towards the end of the year. Now that we are at the end of the financial year, I and my colleagues are doing everything that we can to ensure that there is not a cut to Creative Scotland’s ability to fund the regularly funded organisations. As we have heard repeatedly at this committee—as, in fact, this committee heard last week from Iain Munro himself—there will not be detriment to the regularly funded organisations through Creative Scotland’s budgetary processes. Beyond that, the uncontracted spend right across the culture sector that otherwise would have had to face massive cuts is now not doing so.

I am sure that the convener would not want me to repeat the evidence that I gave in my opening statement about the changed financial circumstances and the additional pressures on the budget, although I would be delighted to do that if Mr Cameron wants me to. Mr Cameron was here and he heard that. If he needs to hear it again, I would be happy to share that with the committee.

Mr Cameron asserted that organisations will not be assured. Is he saying that the regularly funded organisations will not be assured when they receive their funding? That would surprise me. Creative Scotland is informing its regularly funded organisations that they will be receiving their funding in the next few weeks as planned. I imagine that the organisations are significantly assured, even if Mr Cameron is not.

In relation to the difference between the start and the end of the year, that should be obvious to any fair-minded person. I appeal to people’s fair mindedness in understanding the extreme financial pressures and to appreciate that, given that we are at the end of the year, we are getting closer to the introduction of the multiyear funding of the regularly funded organisations.

It is for Creative Scotland to explain its funding mechanisms, and I have no doubt that you will ask the organisation back to the committee to give evidence. One way or another, the organisation will have been beginning to need to draw down its reserves in order to spend on its multiyear funding of organisations. The commitment has been given that they will be provided with that funding in the normal way next year, so there is no detriment in relation to the reserves and funding that are available for Creative Scotland when it manages the transition for regularly funded organisations.