Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have two questions on sustainability. Many people who are watching the meeting will ask themselves whether it is sheer hypocrisy to demand certainty and multiyear funding from the Scottish Government and, at the same time, say nothing about £160 million being taken out of the Scottish Government’s budget with 90 minutes’ notice. The two things cannot co-exist, and where they do, it is hypocritical, in my view.

On financial sustainability, it is true that, as Meghan Gallacher said and, I think, as the cabinet secretary mentioned, all sorts of third sector groups are very keen to have multiyear funding. How you can have that when you do not have certainty from Westminster is the big question, but is it the case that the culture sector is slightly different? The sector has told us in evidence how precarious it feels, and if you have an end point of £100 million-plus in 2028, you know that you will be spending £100 million more by then. Is the bridge to that not a more manageable process in the culture sector than it would be in a number of other sectors? The sector is uniquely precarious, but you have an end point in place that you and your colleagues can usefully use to consider whether indications could be given as to what funding there will be over the next three or four years.

How late on did you tell them?

So, essentially, 1 per cent would mean doubling the budget?

Just remind me again, because I lose track. What has been the pattern of national lottery funding? Will you outline whether there has been a reduction in the past few years? Has that been part of the issue?

I do not know, but the budget is probably about £35 billion, or something like that.

Before we go to other witnesses, I will pursue the issue of the 1 per cent funding. I do not know whether you are able to quantify what that would be—say, £350 million? Do you know what kind of increase that represents from what you currently get from the Government?

You will be pleased to hear that my second question is much more focused. On the issue of cross-portfolio work, it would be interesting to hear a conversation take place between those on the culture side of things and those in education. Those in education are batting for more money for music tuition and have been asked to give it up to another portfolio. Things like that will go on, but they are difficult.

Please have faith that every single department will talk about the multiplier effect of what they do—education, health and housing will all do the same thing. I am not saying that what they say is not true; I am saying that they all make powerful arguments.

I genuinely do not know whether the sector has gone any distance towards doing things such as shared services in relation to personnel functions or wages, or even grant funding, applying for which can be very onerous and time consuming. Is there much joint working between different entities in the sector to try to bear down on those costs?

My question is a quick one. In the constant communication between Creative Scotland and the Scottish Government over the period to 3 September—when it was confirmed that funding had been reinstated—were you making the Scottish Government aware that you might have to close the fund? Was the Government aware of that before it happened?

The genesis of some of the issues that we have talked about was a decision by the national lottery. I am aware, as I am sure you are, of all the odium that Creative Scotland and the Scottish Government get, but I did not hear any fuss about the national lottery pulling its funding. I do not know whether there is any intention or campaign to try to get that funding reinstated; perhaps that is not possible.

I suppose that the committee’s job is to find out where the fire is and get through some of the smoke, but I find it quite difficult. For example, we heard earlier that the cultural sector is one of the fastest-growing sectors, but it is also in decline. It is quite hard to reconcile those two things in my mind.

My question builds on what Patrick Harvie said earlier. Maybe you already do this and I am just unaware of it, but would it be possible for the review to look at an expanded role for Creative Scotland whereby it would procure additional funding, whether that is commercial or private funding, sponsorship money from ethical sources or additional revenue streams, as Patrick Harvie mentioned, as well as the money that you get from the Government? There is a fourth possibility, which involves local government. In that way, one body would be going out and looking for that additional funding. Given that we are being told that the public finances can only get worse, it is surely time to expand the range of approaches. I know that that goes on anyway, but would a more focused approach be possible if it was vested in Creative Scotland’s remit?

Thanks for coming along today.

I have two questions. The first is really an observation, which I would like to get your views on. Last week, we had a similar evidence session, and it was described—probably by me—as a bit of a “doom loop”, and this week seems no different, to be honest.

On the one hand, at the root of all this is the question of resources. I understand that point. However, there seems to be something else going on, which is a lack of a shared understanding between the sector, the Government and Creative Scotland. I agree with the contributions that have been made—especially by Liam Sinclair—about Creative Scotland and the Scottish Government. It is confusing. I probably disagree with the origin of that, but that is certainly true. The committee has seen confusing messages coming out, with one thing being said one day and then that being changed the next day.

I cannot speak for the committee, but I think that it would generally agree with the point about multiyear funding. I think that everybody wants that from Government, but the sector has a particular claim, given the precarious nature of many of the people who are active in it. I think that the committee would support that. There could also generally be a stronger case made to Government; I think that the committee would probably be keen to support that.

On the other hand, if it is the case the Government does not properly understand the need for that, I also do not think that there is a true understanding of the nature of the issues that the Government faces. Lori Anderson’s submission talks about lack of investment over a decade, standstill funding, the impacts of Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic, high inflation and the cost of living crisis. It also refers to 15 years of standstill funding. I am trying to think what might have happened 15 years ago, when standstill funding was started—but it is not mentioned here. There is also the fact that we are now into a new continued period of austerity.

In relation to multiyear funding, there is also the fact that the Government itself is now being asked to set its budget without knowing what it will get in terms of block grant, which is an absurd situation, and that, a couple of weeks ago, it had £160 million stripped out of its budget at 90 minutes’ notice.

There does not seem to be a shared understanding of the causes and effects. We are hearing about the effects—quite rightly—from the sector, but the better way to make the case is to understand the pressures on the other side and then to make a concerted case for multiyear funding.

Those are my views. I am interested in how you will come back on them, which I am sure you will.