Chamber and committees

I can say with 100 per cent certainty that I have not received any communication from any other parliamentarian or party to suggest that. I have heard calls for this or that to happen, or for more of this or that, but there have been zero suggestions that funding could be found elsewhere to deal with funding pressures in culture.

The funding that has been given to Creative Scotland in relation to the reducing level of national lottery payments has undoubtedly assisted in its being able to accrue reserves, which have most recently totalled £17 million, and I acknowledge that that is clearly important to the organisation. Mr Brown is right to say that, although the commitment of the Scottish Government to step in to bridge the funding gap was foreseen to be for three years, we have maintained it for five years.

We have already explored a bit the importance of multi-annual funding and the positive impact that it will have on the culture sector—it is what the sector and the Scottish Government want. However, that involves a huge transition programme from Creative Scotland, working on behalf of the culture sector in Scotland, and Creative Scotland needs to know that it has the resources in place when that process kicks in. As I have said a number of times from a number of angles, Creative Scotland will have the funding that it expected and requires to have in place to be able to do that work.

The global culture budgets of the Scottish Government are a separate issue but, as I have said, I will approach that subject with my colleagues in Government to ensure that we have the best possible settlement. The fact that Creative Scotland has been able to build up reserves reflects the fact that it has received funding from the Scottish Government in addition to the moneys that have been lost from the reducing amount from the national lottery.

In general, as we know, one person’s wish for ring fencing is seen by another person as an instruction to those who should be able to make those decisions. We hear that at the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee a lot, do we not? The pendulum of public opinion swings on that. To an extent, there is already budgetary ring fencing. If we look at the budget lines in my portfolio, we see that there are different ways in which festivals, for example, are supported.

I have always been open minded to good ideas, whether from the culture sector or from the committee, whose reports are excellent—I say that not just because I am appearing before you. I say to colleagues, and especially to colleagues from other political parties, that, if there are genuine suggestions about how things could be better organised, I appeal for people’s input on such matters. I have to sit here in the hot seat and answer to what we are doing in Government, and I appreciate that Opposition colleagues need to do what they do. However, there is no monopoly on common sense.

I am very interested in what we can learn from other jurisdictions and other countries about different funding approaches for the creative and arts sector. In the past, we have brought up ideas such as a percentage for arts, which is a potential new funding stream.

We must acknowledge the tremendous benefit that we derive from philanthropy. Last week, I was at the opening event for the new galleries at the National Galleries of Scotland. That project was significantly supported by Scottish Government funding. The galleries are world class; I encourage all colleagues to go if they have not yet been there. A lot of the key supporters of the project were at the event, and I was struck that—although one would not know this, because they do not advertise it—they are incredibly generous to, in that case, the National Galleries of Scotland, but we could say the same thing about their generosity towards the V&A Dundee, Celtic Connections and any number of things. Much more needs to be done in the philanthropy space not just to work with people who are so generous but to say thank you to them, because we need to work in partnership to ensure that we provide the maximum resource.

We also need to be aware of the significant financial support that comes to cultural organisations and venues from outwith Scotland. I am thinking of people from the Scottish diaspora, among others, who contribute really generously.

There is more that we can do in that space. If Mr Stewart has any new ideas in that respect, I would be delighted to work with him on them.

No.

The conversation is live and on-going, and it will continue ad infinitum as long as the Government is committed to mainstreaming culture and realising across Government the full potential benefits of the culture and the arts sector.

We have not fully understood the potential of some aspects of that. As I have mentioned to people around this table in previous evidence sessions—I am sorry; I should at this point give a warm welcome to the new members of the committee, for whom this is my first evidence session—it is clear to most people that there are benefits that can accrue in health and education and perhaps in justice and other policy areas. Most people think, “Well, that might benefit patients in health settings, children or young people in education or prisoners in a justice setting.” However, it is not just those people who benefit; those who work in the health service, those who teach and those who work in our justice system benefit, too.

There are, therefore, real opportunities that we need to explore, but explore in the round. After all, if there are interventions that can help with mental health, anxiety and a range of things that impact on the workforce as well as patients, pupils and so on, there is hope to believe that they will not only be of intrinsic value to all the people who might be helped but have an impact—there is some evidence to show this—on working patterns in public services. Across Government, we need to understand that this is not only something that potentially has a cost but something that brings savings. I think that we all understand what the advantages beyond the financial ones are, but there is still a financial dimension to all this, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on helping people to understand that mainstreaming culture—or, say, introducing social prescribing—not only has a cost but brings a benefit that offsets existing outgoings.

I welcome Mr Stewart to the committee. When he met the people outside the Scottish Parliament, I am not sure whether he brought up, by way of reassurance, the avowed commitments of Creative Scotland and its reserves. I do not know whether he took the opportunity to reassure people that there would be no detriment, which was in the public realm at that stage. It is important that, when we are in receipt of the facts, we all make sure that we use them to assuage concerns that are less well-founded. I think that we have been able to do that today in relation to Creative Scotland, its funding and its use of reserves.

I totally acknowledge the wider anxieties and concerns. Mr Stewart has definitely given me food for thought about how we report on the considerable efforts of our organisations, whether it be Creative Scotland, Screen Scotland or others, which have been working tirelessly with organisations that are suffering distress. I certainly would not want any impression to be created that there is a lack of intervention, concern or impact from our agencies that are assisting. I put on record my appreciation for everybody who is involved in that.

Maybe the issue is in the nature of the matter. We are often talking about commercial organisations that have been getting into difficult situations, and not everybody wants such information to be in the public space, but I give Mr Stewart the absolute assurance that there have regularly been game-changing interventions. Scottish Government-funded public organisations are assisting the cultural sector to get through these difficult times.

Mr Stewart has mentioned the culture strategy and updated documents. Where possible, we can provide case studies about, insight into and understanding of the assistance that has been provided to help venues, organisations and individual artists to continue to work in the sector. There is a challenge—it certainly applied during Covid and it remains for some—of people making decisions about whether they want to or can remain active in the culture and creative sector. We need to do everything that we can to give people the best support to do that.

Mr Stewart definitely leaves a thought with me that I will take away. I will be happy to update the committee on how we can inform all members about the interventions that are making profound impacts. That would be beneficial. The committee has heard from Iain Munro and Isabel Davis; I have no doubt that they will be back and I am sure that they would be happy to provide you with the information that they can provide, because they are doing the heavy lifting in all this, which I am very appreciative of.

I am always open to working with authorities furth of Scotland. In the case of the world championships, British Cycling was a wider UK organisation with which we worked very closely and very well to deliver an event that involved a GB team performing at an event in Scotland that was funded through the Scottish Government. We have to work our way through. Sometimes, Scotland competes internationally as an independent country; in other cases, it competes in a wider GB or UK context. There will always be a discussion with UK authorities and UK Government partners about how we can do all of that.

However, as we debated in the chamber the other day, if funding is to be provided in areas for which devolved oversight is in this place, there is an as yet unresolved issue about the ability of parliamentarians to scrutinise how all that works. The committee will have me in—I cannot remember how many times I have given evidence and I will happily continue to do that—but it is now par for the course that UK Government ministers refuse to give evidence to this Parliament, even though they are becoming ever more involved in devolved areas, and not always in benign ways. Where we can work together, however, we will, such as through the home nations’ approach to the forthcoming footballing events. We will be working with other Governments in the UK, the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the footballing authorities. As we have shown with other events, we are more than capable of doing that and we want to do that in the future.

We will look, but I do not think that we will find it. The big difference between all the places that Mr Brown outlined and Scotland is their financial ability to raise income in a way that the Scottish Government does not have. I have heard claims in the past couple of days about how Scotland has the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, which is frankly not true. A number of the places that Mr Brown mentioned have significant powers beyond Scotland’s in order to secure the financial means to deal with situations in a time of extremis. Scotland is extremely constrained in our budgetary powers and ability to find additional moneys in times of financial distress.

That is why, in this context, it is mission critical to understand that where we have reserves in the public purse, so to speak, if and when we reach a rainy day when we really need the funds to get ourselves through difficult times, we are able to use them. That is exactly what we have done, and we have done it in a way that will not provide detriment to, in this case, Creative Scotland. That is a good thing.

There is a wider issue going forward, and no doubt the committee will have me back for further evidence sessions about the budget in future years. I will be delighted to hear from MSPs of both governing and Opposition parties if there are serious proposals to increase, in this case, the culture budget, including from where the money will come. I have not heard that once in my time as culture secretary.

Goodness—there was a lot in that.

First, with regard to the regularly funded organisations, I can do no better than quote Creative Scotland’s Iain Munro who, in his evidence to you, said that the use of reserves by Creative Scotland

“will enable us to maintain the payment for the RFOs as planned, without the cut being applied.”

He went on to say:

“given that this £6.6 million is a one-off and that we are using our reserves to offset it, we are protecting the balance of the reserves position to enable transition support, as far as we reasonably can.”

He then said:

“It stabilises the situation.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 28 September 2023; c 2, 3, 4.]

That is Creative Scotland’s perspective, and I am immensely grateful for the collaborative approach that we are taking to dealing with the funding pressures that we are all having to manage. In effect, we have been able to ensure that there is no impact on Scotland’s cultural organisations as a result of the funding decision. There will be discussions about the finances for next year and the year after that; however, the commitment has been given with regard to the £6.6 million from this year, and it will be paid during the next financial year.

To those who might have been given the impression that a cut was going to be imposed on cultural organisations as a result of this decision, I have to say that that is factually inaccurate. Indeed, I do not think that such a view is particularly helpful, given the wider concerns that quite rightly exist about the financial pressures on the cultural sector.

On the wider point, the first thing to reflect on is that the particular challenge right now is that we are coming to the end of a financial year in which there have been unprecedented additional cost pressures, which I have outlined and which included the funding settlements for pay. That means that money must be found elsewhere, but one has already allocated a significant part of the annual spend earlier in the year, so one is looking at a far smaller part of the budget and a reduced amount of money for the end of the year. That is why we are in a particularly challenging situation with in-year budget finance.

As you would expect from someone in my position, I must look at that and work out what the options are. The best way to explain that is to say that there are three dimensions to the funding challenge within the portfolio. The first relates to major events that are part of the portfolio, including, this year, the UCI cycling world championships. The common consensus is that those were an amazing success for Scotland, but they led to extra costs. The second part of the funding challenge relates to the £6.6 million final payment made to Creative Scotland within this financial year. The remainder of the challenge comes from the uncontracted remaining spend on culture. We must find solutions to all three things because they are not going to go away and we must face them. What are we going to do about that?

On the first part of that equation, although the final figure remains to be worked out, I have acknowledged that something in the order of £8 million will be required in relation to the UCI cycling world championships. Those events brought benefits across Scotland and across Government, and the Scottish Government has agreed that the cost should be borne across Government, rather than simply within the portfolio. That is a hugely significant decision for the portfolio, which is the second smallest in the Government, meaning that that amount would be very significant for our budget.

The second challenge relates to the £6.6 million end-of-year finance payment to Creative Scotland. The fact that Creative Scotland made the decision to use reserves means that that challenge on the Scottish Government budget, which is under significant pressure, is obviated, and that the challenge is also obviated from the point of view of the regularly funded organisations that expect imminent payments. I understand that Creative Scotland is in the process of informing and assuring those organisations that they will be paid as they expected to be.

That leaves the final amount, which is the uncontracted spend for the rest of the year. Although there will be challenges, I am confident that, as a result of decisions made in the three areas, we will be able to ensure that we can fund areas across the culture portfolio that would otherwise have been under threat and where there would not have been the opportunity to use reserves.

That is the key thing to understand about trying to find a solution to funding pressures. None of this has been easy: it has involved colleagues in the culture sector working with Government to ensure that we can get ourselves into the best possible situation in a very challenging context. Given the pressures, I think that we have achieved a very good result.

Did I answer all your questions, which were packaged together?

My key reflection on Mr Cameron’s observations is that, to use his own words, the evidence was given before last week. It was given before the assurances by Iain Munro of Creative Scotland on the use of reserves; it was given before the assurances that have been given to the regularly funded organisations; and it was given before this evidence session, in which I have repeatedly given clarity on the zero detriment point in relation to Creative Scotland’s funding.

I view that issue separately from the particular concerns being expressed about the significant challenges that are faced by venues, of which theatres form a big part, and I know that Creative Scotland is working with venues and theatres to ensure that we are able to do everything that we can so that they can continue to operate into the future. There are some aspects of that that do not fall within the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I worked very hard with the theatre sector on the issue of tax reliefs for venues, which is a UK Treasury matter, and we were successful in increasing the timescale for the operation of tax exemptions for venues, including theatres, which I know is materially important to venues’ ability to continue trading. We must be alive to that pressure and to others, too, and I look forward to continuing to work with the theatre sector in that respect.

The key point in Mr Cameron’s question, though, was that the evidence that he cited was given before all that. It is important that we reflect on the assurances that Creative Scotland and I have given, and the self-evident fact that there is no detriment to Creative Scotland’s ability to fund the regularly funded organisations, which will be receiving the funding that they were expecting in the next weeks.