That suggestion has been made and is being repeated, and it is being promoted very actively by some members of the cultural community. That community has suggested that the suggestion needs to be explored further, and I am open to learning about it. As I have said to the committee that Mark Ruskell serves on, we need to look imaginatively at all kinds of ways in which we could secure the necessary funding for the culture and arts sector. The suggestion, which Mark Ruskell has made a number of times, is one that merits further consideration. I look forward to the committee looking at it closely and to receiving more advice on it. No doubt we will look at it together with other suggestions, to ensure that the culture and arts sector receives the funding that it requires. I know that Mark Ruskell supports that. I certainly do.

As I have already confirmed to the chamber, next financial year we will increase funding to the culture sector by £15.8 million to £196.6 million. That is the first step on the route to investing at least £100 million more annually in culture and the arts by the financial year 2028-29.

The commitment has already been given by the Deputy First Minister in the recent budget that, in 2025-26, we aim to provide an additional £25 million to the culture sector. That commitment to additional funding is despite the challenging budget situation, and signals our confidence to the Scottish culture sector, including in Clydebank and Milngavie.

I pay tribute to Marie McNair, who has been a doughty campaigner for the culture and arts community in Clydebank and Milngavie.

It is incredibly important that the benefits of funding for the culture and arts sector be felt throughout the whole country. An example of that is the Culture Collective programme, which is a Scotland-wide programme that we fund to develop in our communities grass-roots participatory arts experiences, including projects to reduce social isolation.

We want, through increased investment in culture over the next five years, to drive up opportunities for participation in creative pursuits—which, of course, includes those in Clydebank and Milngavie.

I commend Willie Rennie, because he has asked that question a number of times and wants to ensure that there is the maximum possible spend for the culture and the arts sector in North East Fife, and that the rest of Fife can be secure. I have said to him previously that it is important that we have separation between our arm’s-length cultural organisation—Creative Scotland, which makes the decisions—and ministers. It is not for ministers to direct specific regional projects.

If Willie Rennie is aware of culture projects that are not being appropriately funded, will he please make me and Creative Scotland aware of them. I and my colleagues want to ensure that our culture and arts sector across Scotland is properly funded.

I welcome Willie Rennie’s input and extend to him and his party colleagues an offer to input any suggestions that they might have about the increase in spending that we will undertake in the years ahead. I welcome his input on where relative priorities should be.

We are increasing funding to the culture and heritage sector by £15.8 million in the next financial year, to £196.6 million. That is the first step on the route to investing at least £100 million more annually in culture and the arts by the financial year 2028-29. In 2025-26, we aim to provide an additional £25 million to the culture sector. That commitment to additional funding, despite the challenging budget situation, signals our confidence in the Scottish culture sector.

The board of Creative Scotland welcomed the proposed settlement for the agency of just over £68 million in grant-in-aid funding for 2024-25, which compares with £55 million for the current financial year, particularly given the continued pressure on the public finances. I welcome views from other stakeholders as part of the Scottish Parliament budget process over the forthcoming weeks.

I point Sharon Dowey to the answer that I just gave about Creative Scotland’s welcome for the increased funding that it is receiving.

If the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party has specific suggestions about additional funding that it believes that the culture sector requires, I would be very pleased to hear them from Sharon Dowey or the front-bench members. I would also be pleased to hear from them where they would identify cuts elsewhere to make those additional commitments. This Government has made commitments for increased spending. We are delivering it, and we will deliver more over the years ahead. I welcome the support of members in other parties in recognising that fact.

That is a very good question. I point Graham Simpson to the report that I mentioned. It is clear from the tone of his question that Graham Simpson has not read that report, because it lists the benefits, which are significant. For example, the work of Scottish Development International is predicted to generate £1.7 billion of trade revenue. The report goes on to list other benefits: the creation of 1,000 Scottish real living wage jobs through investments from the United States of America; the creation of 500 such jobs as a result of Chinese investments; £120 million of capital investment is planned as a result of our presence in Canada; and 190 new connections for Scottish businesses have been made through our Ireland office. I could go on.

I would welcome some consistency on the matter from the Scottish Conservative Party, because while its front-bench members request that we increase our presence internationally, its back-bench members criticise us. I make no apology for promoting Scotland internationally. I wish that members on Graham Simpson’s side of the chamber would welcome that.

I commend Foysol Choudhury not just for his positive question and for recognising the good work that is done to promote Scotland, our economy, our culture and our tourism sector but for his thoughtful query about the network and where we have offices and people in situ. Incidentally, it is very positive that the Scottish Conservative Party’s front-bench spokesperson has asked about that in committee.

There are parts of the world in which we do not yet have a presence, and I think that it is worth our while looking at that. We are committed to maintaining the network as it currently exists, and we are committed to establishing a presence in Poland—there is widespread agreement on why that is a good thing.

Beyond that, questions have been raised—for example, by Donald Cameron—about our having a presence in South America or in Africa. Given his expertise in the region, I have no doubt that Foysol Choudhury would make a strong case for our having a presence in the Indian subcontinent, to cover India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. That is very much worth looking at, and I welcome the positive contribution by those who wish to promote Scotland internationally, as opposed to those who want to undermine our international position.

Thank you very much. Happy new year to you, Presiding Officer, and to members right across the chamber.

Like Clare Adamson, I am delighted to participate in this important debate about the report by the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. I thank all the committee members and the clerks for what is an extremely thorough and forensic piece of work, and I commend it to all members who have not yet read it.

The report’s conclusion should surprise no one in the chamber. Brexit has ushered in an unprecedented assault on the powers of this Parliament and on the whole system of self-government that was endorsed decisively by people in Scotland in 1997. The Scottish Government was not alone in predicting the negative impact of Brexit on devolved institutions. Indeed, the Welsh Government has also sounded a clear and consistent alarm at the UK Government’s approach to devolution and intergovernmental relations since 2016. Sadly, those fears have come to pass, as the committee’s report lays bare.

The force of the report’s conclusion is, of course, made all the more powerful by the fact that it is unanimous. It was supported by members from the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Labour Party. I hope that the willingness to rise above party political considerations that is evident in the report will encourage colleagues from all sides of the chamber to engage in a way that allows this Parliament to speak with one voice on the threat that it faces.

The thoroughness and quality of the committee’s work means that it cannot be dismissed as what some are fond of saying is nothing more than “manufactured grievance”. It is nothing less than a clear warning of the need for a unified response from this Parliament to the threat that Scotland’s devolved institutions face.

John Swinney makes his point clearly and persuasively. I am really keen that, given that the report was agreed unanimously—all the political parties were in agreement—we hear those points echoed from all sides of the chamber.

I have heard in some questions at various points during this session of Parliament a sense that the UK and Scottish Governments are jointly responsible for there being bad intergovernmental relations. However, it is crystal clear to us that the problem that we are dealing with is the UK Government’s approach. We need the other political parties in the chamber to support the Scottish Government to ensure that we can support the devolution settlement.

To reinforce John Swinney’s point, we, as parliamentarians, have a shared responsibility for protecting the integrity of this institution, which has served the people of Scotland for more than a quarter of a century. After all, we are here because the people of Scotland voted for this Parliament. It is their mandate that has given us democratic self-government in Scotland, and there is no mandate or justification for the steady erosion of the devolution settlement that we have seen since the Brexit referendum.

The committee’s report recognises the severe strain that the operation of the Sewel convention has been under since Brexit. It is essential for the effectiveness of the convention that it is scrupulously observed when there are policy disagreements between the Scottish and UK Governments, especially on matters of significance. The opposite has, in fact, occurred, with the convention being set aside in areas in which there are differences between the Scottish and UK Governments, and the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament are being adversely affected, most notably by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. That is precisely the circumstance in which the convention was intended to operate as a safeguard for devolution.

Until 2018, we saw scrupulous observance of the convention by UK Governments of all stripes. Since then, however, the convention has, in the words of the Welsh First Minister, Mark Drakeford, “withered on the vine”. It is worth noting that routine breaches of the Sewel convention are a comparatively recent development. The convention was strictly observed—barring one quickly rectified error—for most of the first two decades of devolution. From there being no breaches between 1999 and 2018, the convention has now been breached 11 times. “Not normally” now appears to be emptied of all meaning.