Seòmar agus comataidhean

I can say with 100 per cent certainty that I have not received any communication from any other parliamentarian or party to suggest that. I have heard calls for this or that to happen, or for more of this or that, but there have been zero suggestions that funding could be found elsewhere to deal with funding pressures in culture.

The funding that has been given to Creative Scotland in relation to the reducing level of national lottery payments has undoubtedly assisted in its being able to accrue reserves, which have most recently totalled £17 million, and I acknowledge that that is clearly important to the organisation. Mr Brown is right to say that, although the commitment of the Scottish Government to step in to bridge the funding gap was foreseen to be for three years, we have maintained it for five years.

We have already explored a bit the importance of multi-annual funding and the positive impact that it will have on the culture sector—it is what the sector and the Scottish Government want. However, that involves a huge transition programme from Creative Scotland, working on behalf of the culture sector in Scotland, and Creative Scotland needs to know that it has the resources in place when that process kicks in. As I have said a number of times from a number of angles, Creative Scotland will have the funding that it expected and requires to have in place to be able to do that work.

The global culture budgets of the Scottish Government are a separate issue but, as I have said, I will approach that subject with my colleagues in Government to ensure that we have the best possible settlement. The fact that Creative Scotland has been able to build up reserves reflects the fact that it has received funding from the Scottish Government in addition to the moneys that have been lost from the reducing amount from the national lottery.

In general, as we know, one person’s wish for ring fencing is seen by another person as an instruction to those who should be able to make those decisions. We hear that at the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee a lot, do we not? The pendulum of public opinion swings on that. To an extent, there is already budgetary ring fencing. If we look at the budget lines in my portfolio, we see that there are different ways in which festivals, for example, are supported.

I have always been open minded to good ideas, whether from the culture sector or from the committee, whose reports are excellent—I say that not just because I am appearing before you. I say to colleagues, and especially to colleagues from other political parties, that, if there are genuine suggestions about how things could be better organised, I appeal for people’s input on such matters. I have to sit here in the hot seat and answer to what we are doing in Government, and I appreciate that Opposition colleagues need to do what they do. However, there is no monopoly on common sense.

I am very interested in what we can learn from other jurisdictions and other countries about different funding approaches for the creative and arts sector. In the past, we have brought up ideas such as a percentage for arts, which is a potential new funding stream.

We must acknowledge the tremendous benefit that we derive from philanthropy. Last week, I was at the opening event for the new galleries at the National Galleries of Scotland. That project was significantly supported by Scottish Government funding. The galleries are world class; I encourage all colleagues to go if they have not yet been there. A lot of the key supporters of the project were at the event, and I was struck that—although one would not know this, because they do not advertise it—they are incredibly generous to, in that case, the National Galleries of Scotland, but we could say the same thing about their generosity towards the V&A Dundee, Celtic Connections and any number of things. Much more needs to be done in the philanthropy space not just to work with people who are so generous but to say thank you to them, because we need to work in partnership to ensure that we provide the maximum resource.

We also need to be aware of the significant financial support that comes to cultural organisations and venues from outwith Scotland. I am thinking of people from the Scottish diaspora, among others, who contribute really generously.

There is more that we can do in that space. If Mr Stewart has any new ideas in that respect, I would be delighted to work with him on them.

No.

The conversation is live and on-going, and it will continue ad infinitum as long as the Government is committed to mainstreaming culture and realising across Government the full potential benefits of the culture and the arts sector.

We have not fully understood the potential of some aspects of that. As I have mentioned to people around this table in previous evidence sessions—I am sorry; I should at this point give a warm welcome to the new members of the committee, for whom this is my first evidence session—it is clear to most people that there are benefits that can accrue in health and education and perhaps in justice and other policy areas. Most people think, “Well, that might benefit patients in health settings, children or young people in education or prisoners in a justice setting.” However, it is not just those people who benefit; those who work in the health service, those who teach and those who work in our justice system benefit, too.

There are, therefore, real opportunities that we need to explore, but explore in the round. After all, if there are interventions that can help with mental health, anxiety and a range of things that impact on the workforce as well as patients, pupils and so on, there is hope to believe that they will not only be of intrinsic value to all the people who might be helped but have an impact—there is some evidence to show this—on working patterns in public services. Across Government, we need to understand that this is not only something that potentially has a cost but something that brings savings. I think that we all understand what the advantages beyond the financial ones are, but there is still a financial dimension to all this, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on helping people to understand that mainstreaming culture—or, say, introducing social prescribing—not only has a cost but brings a benefit that offsets existing outgoings.

I welcome Mr Stewart to the committee. When he met the people outside the Scottish Parliament, I am not sure whether he brought up, by way of reassurance, the avowed commitments of Creative Scotland and its reserves. I do not know whether he took the opportunity to reassure people that there would be no detriment, which was in the public realm at that stage. It is important that, when we are in receipt of the facts, we all make sure that we use them to assuage concerns that are less well-founded. I think that we have been able to do that today in relation to Creative Scotland, its funding and its use of reserves.

I totally acknowledge the wider anxieties and concerns. Mr Stewart has definitely given me food for thought about how we report on the considerable efforts of our organisations, whether it be Creative Scotland, Screen Scotland or others, which have been working tirelessly with organisations that are suffering distress. I certainly would not want any impression to be created that there is a lack of intervention, concern or impact from our agencies that are assisting. I put on record my appreciation for everybody who is involved in that.

Maybe the issue is in the nature of the matter. We are often talking about commercial organisations that have been getting into difficult situations, and not everybody wants such information to be in the public space, but I give Mr Stewart the absolute assurance that there have regularly been game-changing interventions. Scottish Government-funded public organisations are assisting the cultural sector to get through these difficult times.

Mr Stewart has mentioned the culture strategy and updated documents. Where possible, we can provide case studies about, insight into and understanding of the assistance that has been provided to help venues, organisations and individual artists to continue to work in the sector. There is a challenge—it certainly applied during Covid and it remains for some—of people making decisions about whether they want to or can remain active in the culture and creative sector. We need to do everything that we can to give people the best support to do that.

Mr Stewart definitely leaves a thought with me that I will take away. I will be happy to update the committee on how we can inform all members about the interventions that are making profound impacts. That would be beneficial. The committee has heard from Iain Munro and Isabel Davis; I have no doubt that they will be back and I am sure that they would be happy to provide you with the information that they can provide, because they are doing the heavy lifting in all this, which I am very appreciative of.

I am always open to working with authorities furth of Scotland. In the case of the world championships, British Cycling was a wider UK organisation with which we worked very closely and very well to deliver an event that involved a GB team performing at an event in Scotland that was funded through the Scottish Government. We have to work our way through. Sometimes, Scotland competes internationally as an independent country; in other cases, it competes in a wider GB or UK context. There will always be a discussion with UK authorities and UK Government partners about how we can do all of that.

However, as we debated in the chamber the other day, if funding is to be provided in areas for which devolved oversight is in this place, there is an as yet unresolved issue about the ability of parliamentarians to scrutinise how all that works. The committee will have me in—I cannot remember how many times I have given evidence and I will happily continue to do that—but it is now par for the course that UK Government ministers refuse to give evidence to this Parliament, even though they are becoming ever more involved in devolved areas, and not always in benign ways. Where we can work together, however, we will, such as through the home nations’ approach to the forthcoming footballing events. We will be working with other Governments in the UK, the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the footballing authorities. As we have shown with other events, we are more than capable of doing that and we want to do that in the future.

We will look, but I do not think that we will find it. The big difference between all the places that Mr Brown outlined and Scotland is their financial ability to raise income in a way that the Scottish Government does not have. I have heard claims in the past couple of days about how Scotland has the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, which is frankly not true. A number of the places that Mr Brown mentioned have significant powers beyond Scotland’s in order to secure the financial means to deal with situations in a time of extremis. Scotland is extremely constrained in our budgetary powers and ability to find additional moneys in times of financial distress.

That is why, in this context, it is mission critical to understand that where we have reserves in the public purse, so to speak, if and when we reach a rainy day when we really need the funds to get ourselves through difficult times, we are able to use them. That is exactly what we have done, and we have done it in a way that will not provide detriment to, in this case, Creative Scotland. That is a good thing.

There is a wider issue going forward, and no doubt the committee will have me back for further evidence sessions about the budget in future years. I will be delighted to hear from MSPs of both governing and Opposition parties if there are serious proposals to increase, in this case, the culture budget, including from where the money will come. I have not heard that once in my time as culture secretary.

That is understood; Mr Cameron is making my point about the approach of the then Labour Government, which is now shared by the UK Conservative Party. It reflects their attitude that ultimate sovereignty is with the Westminster Parliament, and that Westminster has the ability to intervene in areas of devolution.

Such measures were supposed to be last resorts, but now they are not last resorts; they are being used increasingly. I acknowledge that some of those measures are in legislation but were not used. However, they are now being used in the post-Brexit context in ways that subvert the role of this Parliament in holding to account ministers who have been elected to make decisions in those policy areas, and those decisions are being made by a Government and a Parliament that are not answerable to the people who have been elected to make those decisions. That is not appropriate working of devolution or a normal understanding of a self-governing country, whether it is devolved or independent.

Thank you very much, convener. I echo your thanks to the committee members who are moving on. I also welcome the members who are joining the committee. I am a pretty regular attender, so I look forward to spending more time with the new committee members, and wish those who are departing the best of luck with their new responsibilities.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to join it today. I am also very grateful to the committee for its initiating this important inquiry. As the committee has been hearing, there are widespread concerns about the future of devolution, given the approach of the current UK Government.

I believe that anyone who supports devolution to this Parliament should be very worried about those developments. We as parliamentarians should be particularly alive to the threats to this institution. After all, we are here because the people of Scotland voted for this Parliament. It is their democratic mandate that has given us democratic self-government in Scotland, and there is no mandate for the steady erosion of the devolution settlement that we have seen since the Brexit referendum.

Convener, you will have seen our paper that sets out how the UK Government has undermined the devolution settlement since 2016. In brief, Westminster has passed—without the Scottish Parliament’s agreement—the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which reduces our effective powers and allows UK ministers to make further changes unilaterally.

The Sewel convention has, in the words of Mark Drakeford, the First Minister of Wales, “withered on the vine”. From there being no breaches between 1999 and 2018, the convention will have been breached 10 times when the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill receives royal assent.

The Secretary of State for Scotland and the UK Government have blocked legislation on devolved matters passed by the Scottish Parliament for the first time, using powers intended as a “last resort”—and they have done so without following any of the agreed processes intended to avoid such an action.

The UK Government is taking a direct role in devolved policy, including decisions on public spending on devolved matters, bypassing the Scottish Parliament. It has tried to redesign the Scottish deposit return scheme, changing the model agreed by this Parliament to fit its own plans. The levelling up fund has been used to pursue UK Government aims in areas of our responsibility—by “our”, I mean all of our responsibility, as a Parliament, and not just the Scottish Government’s—instead of funding the priorities of this Parliament.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill currently at Westminster will put on a statutory basis the UK Government’s “levelling up missions”, which purport to set targets for Scotland and the rest of the UK for devolved matters, such as health, education and crime. Those matters—and any objectives and targets—are for this Parliament and this Government. The UK Government simply has no business setting such targets. To do so cuts at the very purpose of devolution; namely, to allow Scotland self-government and autonomy in areas of devolved responsibility. It is incumbent on us all as parliamentarians and supporters of devolution to recognise the threat that those actions pose to devolution and to take action to address them.

I very much look forward to hearing the committee’s conclusions and recommendations, but I will finish with a few suggestions, if I may.

The pre-eminence of the Scottish Parliament to decide on devolved matters should be restated, although we still have to acknowledge Westminster’s continued claim to sovereignty on all matters.

There should be a recognition that there is no hierarchy of Governments. Each has its own powers, and each has its own responsibilities. There should, therefore, be a commitment to working together with mutual respect and co-operation among the Governments of the UK, as equals. Flowing from that, the Governments should co-operate through negotiation and consensus using agreed intergovernmental processes such as common frameworks, instead of the UK Government centralising and imposing its views using the formal powers of the Westminster Parliament.

Furthermore, there should be a return to the previous constitutional norm that the Sewel convention is always followed, underpinned by proper legal duties on the UK Government.

Those are minimum necessary steps to restoring confidence in the devolution settlement. I recognise that other members will have their own ideas, and I look forward to discussing those with the committee.