Chamber and committees

I completely agree, and that is why I think that it is important that the body can deliver through Scotland and not just to Scotland, which is why it is important that it has genuine and adequate Scottish representation. However, I will move on, as I appreciate that your time is precious.

I could not let today’s session go by without raising the issue of Grangemouth, which, as you will appreciate, is extremely close to my heart. There has been much debate and discussion around the issue, but, in light of what we see in terms of the net zero future, my primary interest remains how we can protect and retain the skills base with whatever transition is put in place, and not only the skills base but that skills cluster, which also includes the important chemical cluster. Can you give a sense of your latest thinking on what the current situation is, for the record?

I suspect that colleagues may want to ask about the detail of how the inflationary environment affects the projects, but I will finish off my questions on the funding elements.

I am thinking about deal interactions and profiling. Public sector funding may move from one pot to another pot—we heard descriptions of that earlier. Deal teams might interact with various sources of potential funding: there is levelling up, the shared prosperity fund and the Scottish National Investment Bank, and we are not yet sure how the UK investment bank will interface with them. Are you alive to that issue, and does it pose any risks or, indeed, opportunities?

No—it is fine. You have put your view on the record, and that is helpful. Thank you. I appreciate you attending today.

On governance, you correctly point out that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government have a role to play. From a purely governance perspective, I have always been a little unclear as to how that arrangement works. Generally speaking, in any governance structure, there will be one authority that is ultimately accountable. In this instance, the position is less clear from a governance perspective. Who do you see being the ultimate accountable body when both the Scottish Government and the UK Government are providing funding? How do you see the arrangement working in that regard?

Good morning—in fact, good afternoon. It has been a long morning for everybody.

I have some general questions. First, in relation to where we are with the budget process and the final vote, discussions are still under way with at least some of the other parties. I appreciate that you will not be able to give the details of the discussions, but I am interested in getting a flavour of the type and extent of changes that you anticipate. Can you give us any more insight?

I will not press any further on that. I suppose that the main reason I was asking was because I am heartened by the renewed focus on growth in this budget and the sentiment that has led to that. I anticipate that the asks will be in spend, and therefore I am asking whether protecting the focus on growth can continue.

You probably guessed that I might pick up on a couple of those things. You mentioned housing. There is a big increase in the budget for affordable housing. I very much welcome that. Can the benefits of that—the multifactor economic benefits of house building in particular—be brought about quickly enough? It is not just about building more houses quickly; it is also about attracting private capital and about the sense of ambition and the mood music that the Government is giving out. Can that be done quickly enough, so that we will start to see real figures emerging in terms of actual delivery against projections? Will that more quickly attract organisations to the table for, for example, the critical issue of build to rent?

I, too, celebrate the increase in funding from the Scottish Government. Will Neil Bibby reflect on the continued, sustained and disproportionate impact of Brexit across our entire arts and culture sector? As I hear time and again in my capacity as convener of the cross-party group on music, it is really hurting. Is Neil Bibby prepared to come out in favour of arts organisations, given the damage of Brexit?

I am pleased with the continued commitment from the Scottish Government and I am pleased that the will of the cabinet secretary has prevailed—despite, I am sure, many competing pressures. It has already been stated, but it is worth stating again that the Scottish Government is halfway to reaching its five-year commitment to that recurring £100 million increase. [Interruption.] Sorry, but facts need to be put on the table.

The SNP Government’s draft budget is a clear statement of intent for Scotland’s arts and culture sector. There is £34 million of additional funding for culture, with £22 million of that for maintenance projects, uplifts for Screen Scotland, Sistema Scotland, the youth music initiative and the festivals expo, and the reinstatement of the culture collective. The cabinet secretary described it as a foundational change, and I agree with him—it is really important.

I declare more than an interest in the arts, in particular in music, as I arguably owe to my degree from what is now the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland every single subsequent element of my career. Before the value of so-called meta skills became commonly appreciated, I was, even at that early stage, aware of the fact that I was learning so much more than just competence in my chosen instruments. I learned how to perform, which stands me in good stead in this place; I can see many other members in the chamber today who have learned the basic skills of drama.

Making my living as a jobbing pianist brought the importance of running a small business to the fore—understanding cash flow and legal contracts, and my unique selling points. I also learned about sales, which—ironically—led me into a future career in business. I learned about self-discipline, and willingly gave up hours of every single day to practise, even through my teenage years when other areas—as members can imagine—held considerable appeal.

Nevertheless, whatever I do, I remain fast to my love of music. At this point, I make another shameless plug to new members of our Scottish Parliament. I started a choir so that we could sing with a thousand voices, not just in debates, so if any member ever wants to join the choir, they can speak to me later.

More seriously, the wider economic environment is critical to ensuring the success of the entire sector, and I make no apology for bringing up Brexit again. At every meeting, and in every interaction, that I have with artists or organisations, they tell me about the on-going and sustained impact on their fundamental ability to take their excellence—the excellence that represents Scotland—to a global stage.

UK Music’s annual economic report, “This Is Music 2024”, which was delivered just at the end of last year, said that

“Brexit has been a catastrophe”

for the sector, with artists still seeing

“fewer invites to perform in the EU”

and swathes of “red tape” when playing on the continent. A much more ambitious plan is needed to ensure that the UK keeps pace with the intensifying global competition.

The current UK Government states that it is “going for growth”, but at the same time, it is continuing to fail to recognise the damage that is done by Brexit. We have to recognise that the UK economy is deeply in trouble when we look at the issues around bond yields and Government gilts. It continues to be a very difficult environment for artists.

I will highlight another area that is not mentioned in the motion, but which we need to keep alive to: the potential impact of generative artificial intelligence on musicians. That is a concern that I am hearing more and more; we see different legislatures around the world attempting to contain it but with very limited effect, given the scale of movement in the area.

Finally, I will make some remarks in respect of my constituency of Falkirk East. Kinneil house is a magnificent, and truly historic, building located in Bo’ness. Once the seat of the Hamilton family, it has been saved from demolition, in particular in 1936, and is now under the care of Historic Environment Scotland. The grounds in which the house is located are a valuable asset for both locals and visitors, and the Kinneil museum, which is ably promoted by the Friends of Kinneil, serves as both a comfort station and a valuable resource for learning more about the cultural contribution of Kinneil house.

That brings me to my main observation. It is vital that the site overall continues to be supported, which needs to involve a multitude of key stakeholders such as Historic Environment Scotland and Falkirk Council. Given the site’s strategic importance and the fact that it represents a totality that is bigger than any one body, pulling in its heritage significance, scale, potential, local socioeconomic benefit and community value requires a pooling of thoughts and minds. Traditionally, with buildings like Kinneil, we have seen that individual bodies—for example, the local council—do not have the necessary totality of sight. I am interested, therefore, in hearing the cabinet secretary’s reflections on my suggestion that the house may be an ideal candidate for the culture and heritage fund.

Will the member accept an intervention?

The latest Bank of Scotland business barometer shows that business confidence in Scotland rose 13 per cent in December. What assessment has the First Minister made of the findings? Can he outline how the budget will support business and thus help confidence to rise further?