Chamber and committees

Sorry, but can I stop you there? I have just said that it is £25 million in addition to the £15 million-plus that is being committed in this budget, so it is £40 million-plus.

I totally understand the question that Mr Bibby is asking and that is being asked by people in the wider culture and arts sector who, understandably, want maximum resource as quickly as possible in order for the sector to thrive.

However, we need to understand the budgetary constraints that the Scottish Government is operating under and the relative priority that has been attached to culture and the arts. Therefore, in comparison with, and in contrast to, other Governments in the United Kingdom, we are increasing culture spending. That is important not just as a down payment on the significant increase that has been committed to for culture and the arts; given the actual cuts that are taking place elsewhere, it gives Creative Scotland, among others, the significant means to help us through the sustain period.

Do I acknowledge that there are venues and organisations that will continue to be in financial distress and that will require support over the coming financial year before additional funding is in place? Yes, I do. Can Government and Government agencies do more? Yes, absolutely. Having said that, let us look at specific examples of venues or events—some are in the public realm and some are not—that have had significant support from Creative Scotland or Screen Scotland. Let us look at the Filmhouse or the Edinburgh International Film Festival and others; let us look at the support that we are providing to V&A Dundee. We are intervening, whether as the Scottish Government, Creative Scotland, Screen Scotland or other agencies, to try to get through this sustain period. I am absolutely focused on our being able to do that.

Would I, as cabinet secretary, like to have the additional £100 million in the coming financial year? Yes, absolutely. However, we have been able to secure additional culture funding while other Governments have been cutting it. We have secured additional commitments from the Government on what will be provided next year as cumulative additional support for culture and the arts and I will work tirelessly—as will my officials, Creative Scotland and other agencies—to make sure that we get through this sustain period where there is financial distress, until we are in a position with additional funding but also a renewed approach to culture and the arts, administratively and, yes, financially, to ensure that it is thriving, as everyone hopes that it will.

Speaking for myself, I find it very hard to understand why we do not have national sporting matches—in this case, football—on our public broadcasters. I cannot understand why that is not the case. Why do people need to subscribe to channels that they have never heard of and pay money to watch their national team perform, particularly when it is doing as well as it is? It is beyond me. The difference in the BBC’s approach to the coverage of England, in particular, is there for everybody to see. Why is that? I do not understand that. I say that as the cabinet secretary for culture—sport is an important part of our national culture.

Frankly, it behoves our public sector broadcasters to look at the coverage of our national sports and to ask why we would treat one nation in the UK differently to others in that respect. I think that we know the reason for that, but to me that is not an excuse for ignoring the coverage of Scotland football matches.

On the point about relief in the sector that we are turning a corner in funding, a significant number of people in the sector have been very kind about the fact that we have been able to secure increased funding for culture while, unfortunately, because of budgetary constraints, that is not the situation elsewhere, in other parts of Government. I am grateful for the support of people in the sector in being able to make their case. It is important that we do everything in our power to ensure that the sector thrives.

On the difference between sustaining and developing, Ms Forbes echoes a point that Donald Cameron made at the previous evidence session that I attended, about organisations that may perform a very important community role but that might not be on a trajectory to be financially self-sustaining. Such organisations may clearly have an important community or wider role to be supported.

I am very alive to this point. There is, indeed, a tension between sustaining what matters—which may or may not be self-sustaining or profitable in a budgetary sense—and developing the sector writ large. I underlined this point in my opening statement, and I am trying to find the wording that I used. I am very keen—as, I know, Creative Scotland is—to consider how we can help cultural and arts organisations to build in the resilience, financial sustainability and, importantly, capacity that they need to thrive.

We can do a lot more of that, because it is different from what Skills Development Scotland or Scottish Enterprise might offer in the wider economy. However, given the experience that we have gone through with the changing nature of society and its interaction with the culture and arts sector, we need to help the sector to manage its room for success more effectively. We need to think anew about how we make that happen. That is where joining up our financial capabilities and additional funding streams will be the answer to Ms Forbes’s conundrum.

I have just confirmed, again, that it is cumulative, so it is just over £40 million additional.

I have now said this three or four times, I think, so there should be no doubt about the clarity of the commitment that has been given about the additional £100 million. However, in terms of the route to get there, we are talking about £15.8 million in this budget and an additional £25 million in the following one—so that will be an additional £40.8 million—and then, in the two years after that, the numbers will be dependent on the budget discussions that take place in the usual way.

If I think back to previous discussions, there was a sense of doubt from some colleagues about whether this is a real thing. It really is a real thing. It is not an aspiration. In comparison to other Governments in the United Kingdom, including Labour-run Wales, which has cut its culture funding, we have increased it. Unlike the UK Government, which has cut culture funding this year, we are increasing it.

We have given the commitment—the Deputy First Minister did it in the budget statement—on the £25 million additional in the financial year 2025-26. As soon as I can, I would want to be able to confirm what the subsequent years will deliver.

I totally understand that the sector wants the front loading of funds. It is what I want—absolutely. It is what I argue for internally, and I want this to happen as quickly as possible. It is correct to say—and Iain Munro is absolutely right to say—that what we are able to do this year is very much within the sustain phase of the culture and arts recovery. As we are able to secure the additional cumulative totals that will boost the culture and arts scene, we will be able to support the sector in a much more significant way to develop and innovate.

First, that is not a sensible suggestion, given that a majority has been elected to the Scottish Parliament with a mandate to pursue Scotland’s independence. Secondly, in the grand scheme of the budgets that we are talking about, the amount is minute and it would make absolutely no serious contribution whatsoever to the scale of the funding challenge that we have as devolved Scotland. If that is the limit of ambition in relation to being able to reallocate money and deliver public services in Scotland, we are in real trouble.

I have always taken the view that it is really important to try to understand the perspectives of different people in different organisations. In this case, I see Creative Scotland demonstrating the demand in the culture and arts sector. If you ask organisations in that sector, “How much money would you like, in an ideal world?”, you will get a massive total, and what that illustrates for an organisation such as Creative Scotland is that it would like the maximum possible funding settlement. I understand that—that is what it wants. I understand that, whether it be Creative Scotland, individual organisations, venues or whatever, people who are receiving support either directly from the Government or through agencies need to illustrate the extremity of the situation as a way of securing support—and the situation is, indeed, very challenging.

The first thing that I would like to say, then, is that I understand why Creative Scotland and its board members are very keen to ensure that they have the funding to get through the massive change programme required for multiyear funding. That is why I was very empathetic in my opening statement and in my answers to the committee’s initial questions about what is being done at present. I work very well with Iain Munro and colleagues at Creative Scotland; I work very well with Isabel Davis and colleagues at Screen Scotland; and I can say the same for Historic Environment Scotland, our national collections and our national performing arts companies. I do not have a problem with any of that.

Is there what one might call a creative tension here, given the very nature of the process? The Scottish Government dispenses funds and organisations that receive them want as much as possible—I understand that. Given the constraints, people have wanted to gain public understanding as well as an understanding in Government of the requirement for money.

I definitely agree, though, that there is a profound lack of understanding about the extent of the financial constraint on devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom. It is unprecedented, and I have not heard a single person, whether it be a member of the Scottish Parliament, someone from an agency, a journalist or anybody else, contribute any suggestion as to where, this year, any additional means that one might want would come from. Nobody, but nobody, has come up with a suggestion on that front—not one.

This year, we have been able to make the case internally for a down payment on additional funding going forward, and no doubt everyone in receipt of funding will want to ensure that they get a part of that. I have talked at some length—and no doubt, convener, you will have me back to talk about it again—about how this new approach will work from the perspective of the Government, our agencies and beyond. We will have to be in a new place. I am working with the people in Creative Scotland and other agencies on the basis of trust and I am confident that we have a trust that is good enough to be able to deliver all that.

My default position is that we should before we should not—if that makes sense. The policy of the Government is that we wish to see Scotland rejoin the European Union as quickly as possible. I look forward to publishing the Scottish Government’s paper on this very subject tomorrow. Anybody who understands how European Union accession works knows that there is a requirement for candidate countries to show that they are ready to join, which, in significant part, is because there is an alignment between candidate countries and the standards of the European Union. Our remaining aligned with the European Union is key to the speediest rejoining of the European Union, which is our stated aim.

My position is that, wherever we can, we should be seeking to align, and there needs to be a very good reason why not. Ms Forbes makes the point: in significant part, it is very much a matter of common sense.

I will refer to colleagues about this later, but I am not aware where there are issues that may have been on the cusp, but there is nothing at the forefront of my mind that falls into that category. Will there be such issues? No doubt. I am not aware of any that are of particular import at the present time, however.

That is a good question. There are quite a number of different sources that can be used as part of EU tracking mechanisms, which are very common in Brussels. I think that everybody knows about the scale of representative organisations, embassies and offices there. Scotland has its own capacity and representation. I would hope that our process is as informed as possible by those tracking providers that provide that service in the best, most useful way. The work that is conducted in the Scottish Parliament is an important part of that.

We will only know if we are missing anything as we go through a number of rounds of the reporting mechanism. Colleagues, clerks or academics can then point to ways in which other tracking mechanisms have caught something—or not—and then work out whether we have done as well as we can.

It is a major industry in Brussels to make sure that everybody is aware of what is happening, and we will avail ourselves of the best information both there and here. As you will know from your own deliberations, extremely talented academics and specialists in the field work daily on that and form part of a wider ecosystem of flagging up what is happening and the import of that. We just have to make sure that we capture it all.