Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that Mr Bibby did not understand where the funding was going to, but now he does know.

If Mr Bibby is saying that we should be cutting provision on population services and migration—something that matters to the Scottish economy—or if he is asking for us to cut civil service capacity to deal with climate change issues, it would be very interesting to see the detail of that. What Mr Bibby is drawing attention to is a change in civil service accounting from one portfolio to another. It is standard practice, as you will be aware, convener. For example, events moved out of the culture portfolio area, and the two particular areas that I have mentioned moved into the accounting provision for the portfolio. To suggest that it is some sort of bloated administrative area that should not have money spent on it will be new to people who care about issues related to policy on population, migration or, indeed, climate change. If Mr Bibby wants to write to me with the detail of how he proposes to deal with the ending of that important provision for the Scottish Government, I would very much look forward to seeing that, rather than soundbites or a press release.

We have already gone through a process, as we do right across Government, in trying to be as efficient and as effective as we can be without cutting core areas of responsibility in which the Government has to have capacity, because we have a responsibility to deliver on those things. We have already made such decisions, including in this portfolio area.

If members and their political parties would wish there to be changes in the process, I point out that we are going through a budget process. If Mr Bibby or other colleagues want there to be changes, they should account for those and they should bring proposals to the chamber. Let us talk about that. Let us see the workings. Let us see what areas other political parties do not want to go forward as part of the process. I am here to give evidence about the Scottish Government’s proposals in the budgetary process, and those can of course be amended. Let us see the proposals and then have a vote on them.

I am confident that we have managed to reach a balanced solution in my portfolio area that is delivering on the responsibilities that I have and that, in the most significant part, is delivering the biggest single increase in culture and arts spending in Scotland since devolution and outwith Covid. I want to ensure that we complete the process, and I have acknowledged that the national performing companies are at the top of my list as we move towards the completion of that process.

If other members wish to have different priorities, please make the proposals. Let us see their workings, and we can then take a view on them in the Parliament.

Thanks for the question.

Convener, I would always want to be able to provide you with the information that you require, so I offer my heartfelt apologies if we have not been able to provide you with everything. In relation to that and in this evidence session, if there is anything that I or my colleagues cannot answer, I will want to provide the committee with all of that afterwards.

I understand that the usual timescale for the Scottish Government response to a committee’s pre-budget inquiry report is within two weeks of the publication of the draft budget bill. The bill was published on 13 January, and my letter to the committee was issued on 20 January, which is well within the two-week deadline.

The level of information in the letter is very much in line with what has been provided in previous years: we set out what we will achieve through the draft up-coming budget. No issues had been raised in past years about the format or level of detail, but clearly you wanted to see more. That is absolutely fine, and we are happy to provide that detail. If there are any learnings to be taken on providing more information, we are happy to take them.

10:15

Understood.

Responsibility for what appears from the Government rests with ministers. However, as I have acknowledged in communication to the committee, and having heard Mr Kerr’s point of order, those numbers—the numbers that he mentions now—are correct. I am happy to confirm the others, but I think that the committee has the full list. I expected those numbers to be published as part of the budget process, and they were. Edits were made not to the numbers but in terms of the presentation—

I am in favour of Creative Scotland exploring all options to make sure that the CCA reopens as soon as is realistically possible. It is a matter of public record that it has had financial and governance challenges.

However, Creative Scotland and authorities in Glasgow have made significant efforts to see that what is a very important artistic institution—for Glasgow, Scotland and beyond—continues. They will have to find a way forward. I am sure that Creative Scotland will be listening to this evidence session, or that its staff will read the Official Report of it, because this is a matter for Creative Scotland to take forward—we know all the provisos about it being arm’s length and all of that. I am certain that it will want to explore all the options to best understand what the viable future is for that very valued cultural institution.

11:00

I very much hope that that is the case. This type of discussion is exactly the same as discussions that we have had in recent years as a result of the pressures elsewhere in the culture sector. For example, the national collections, national museums and others have perhaps not had the allocation that they require in year, but they need assurances—in the case of some organisations, around staff and staff pay—to be able to report to board members, trustees and people who have fiduciary responsibilities.

As I am sure that Mr Harvie will appreciate, it is not simple for the Government to commit to something in a forward budgetary process. For example, with multiyear funding, we were able to confirm what we were going to deliver in the first year of multiyear funding, and what the intention was in year 2. That was very much about giving people a degree of assurance, in as much as a commitment can be given for the next year. Mr Harvie pointed to an additional reality that we need to recognise, which is that we have an election coming up.

I can speak only for my party in relation to what commitments might be given, but I encourage all colleagues in all political parties, in their manifestos, to give the same degree of commitment that my party will provide. That will help to give companies maximum clarity and assurance, so that no decisions that are avoidable need be taken by those companies or by anybody else.

Absolutely.

The fact that we have delivered 70 per cent—£70 million in total—of the £100 million increase should give people confidence that we are delivering on the aspirations of the culture sector. However, that in itself is only the revenue side of the picture, as I am sure that Mr Halcro Johnston would acknowledge.

One can look at other specific projects that are a major boost to confidence in the sector. Look at what is happening with the Dunard centre, the art works project and the King’s theatre and at what has already been delivered for the Citizens Theatre. The Scottish Government has made significant intervention in a load of areas that are giving people confidence and providing amazing venues. The art works project, for example, will be absolutely groundbreaking in relation to how Scotland’s national treasures are housed and opened to the public. Those things are happening.

Do I acknowledge that we are not there yet? Have we delivered 100 per cent of the £100 million increase that we committed to? No, we are not there yet, but we are 70 per cent of the way there, and with the encouragement of the likes of the national performing companies, members of this committee and others to make sure that we get there, we will do so.

11:15