Chamber and committees

I am concerned about anything and everything to do with global warming and climate change, and about whether we are doing enough. Undeniably, the arts and culture play an important role in helping to communicate that reality. During the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—I saw a lot that involved artistic and cultural representation of the climatic and environmental circumstances that we face. It does not take a lot of imagination to see the role that that might play in schools.

That goes back to the broader point about mainstreaming culture and the arts across Government. Education comes immediately to mind. Perhaps Mr Golden has some other ideas. Undoubtedly, more can be done. That goes back to how we make mainstreaming work.

Nevertheless, quite a lot happens. That is a good thing. Perhaps we need to do more to publicise it. I will look at what Iain Munro said and will be happy to speak with him about whether, in specific areas, things are being missed in relation to which we can perhaps do more. I would be happy to look at that.

However, I get the impression that the issue is increasingly reflected in an arts and cultural context. Spoiler alert to anyone who has not yet seen “The Rig”—I am looking at you, Mr Golden; have you seen it?

Okay, no spoilers. It is safe to say that it is a cultural product—a series on a streaming platform—in which the climate dimension is inherently reflected in the storyline. That makes the point that culture has a really important role, which is to reflect the challenges that we face as a society and world. So, it is happening now. Can we do more? Yes. If Mr Golden thinks of any specifics that we need to do more or less of, or differently, I would appreciate him letting me know.

First, I always listen very closely to what Creative Scotland says about the state of the cultural sector in Scotland. It is a hugely effective organisation that we are keen to support financially.

Your question conflates two different things. The first is the medium and long-term funding challenge that Creative Scotland and organisations and individuals in the culture sector might face because of budget constraints. It is important to understand, as I outlined in my introductory statement, that Creative Scotland is in a position to maintain its levels of funding this financial year, which will provide stability to regularly funded organisations.

The second thing, which I hear loud and clear, is the concern about the funding of organisations beyond that time horizon. That goes beyond just the RFOs—if there is a financial constraint, it impacts on a much wider scale. That does, indeed, concern me and I am keen to work with Creative Scotland on that issue to ensure that we can maximise the funding that is available to it.

As I have already made clear to the committee, there needs to be an understanding about the scale of the financial constraints under which the Scottish Government operates. If Mr Cameron is in a position to identify significant areas of funding that could be transferred from elsewhere in the portfolio or the Scottish Government budget, I would be happy to hear about that.

I appeal for the committee to understand that, given the level of constraints under which we find ourselves, it is a good thing that Creative Scotland is able to maintain its level of funding this financial year, and I will be working intensively with it to understand the dangers that it foresees in the years beyond the coming financial year, because I want Scotland’s cultural organisations to flourish rather than face the existential concerns that Iain Munro outlined to the committee, which are of concern to me.

Yes. Funding was put in place to make up for the reducing return from the national lottery to the arts. I should say that conversations are going on with funders such as the national lottery to try to ensure that we can protect the amount of funding that goes towards the arts.

Yes, funding was made available to Creative Scotland to offset what was going on with the national lottery. Creative Scotland was able to build up reserves as a result of that. Out of those circumstances, there will be funding stability through this financial year, but, as I have said to the committee, unless there is an economic upturn or an end to some of the financial pressures, there will still be a medium-term challenge beyond this financial year.

There are two parts to Mr Cameron’s question.

In understanding the budgetary process for this year compared with last year, it is important to know that the portfolio will not incur the same level of costs for the census. That is an important part of understanding the global budgetary position.

That anybody would face risks to their employment status in culture or the arts is of concern to me. As I have said to the committee before, an additional concern is that people will not become active in the sector to start with. It is not just about how the current economic pressures impact on organisations and people in employment; it is about those who might want to start a career in the culture sector.

I am extremely seized of that matter and I am doing everything that I can to underline that the cultural and arts community in Scotland is of import not just for art’s sake but as an extremely important part of our economy.

On Mr Cameron’s justifiable concerns, it is also fair to add that parts of the culture sector are growing considerably. Last year, for example, we learned that the screen sector’s value to the economy is more than £0.5 billion and that, on current trajectories, it will be worth more than £1 billion by 2030, with a significant increase in the number of people who work in that sector.

It is absolutely fair to point to the constraints and difficulties that have been caused by the broad economic circumstances and to Scotland’s budgetary constraints. However, at the same time, it is important to highlight that the culture sector is moving ahead in what are difficult circumstances; that some parts of it are doing extremely well; and that the Scottish Government and our agencies such as Creative Scotland and Screen Scotland, which have a responsibility to work with the parts of sector that are facing difficulties, do everything that we can to support those parts in these difficult times.

Good morning, convener, and thank you for the opportunity to make some opening remarks. I think that we all agree that the Scottish Government’s budget for 2023-24, which was published on 15 December last year, takes place in the most turbulent of economic and financial contexts that most of us can remember.

As the Deputy First Minister set out in his introduction to the Scottish Government’s budget, the cumulative effect of war in Europe, surging energy prices, raging inflation and damage to labour supply and trade due to Brexit, along with the United Kingdom Government’s spectacular financial mismanagement, creates the most difficult set of conditions in which to set a budget.

I must stress that our ability to respond to the cost process is limited by the inactivity of the UK Government and the financial restrictions of devolution. Our budget is largely fixed, our reserves funding is fully utilised and we have no ability to borrow to increase our day-to-day spending.

Since I last appeared before the committee, we have continued to work with the culture sector to identify barriers to immediate and long-term recovery. The Scottish Government has now convened hybrid round-table meetings with the culture sector in Glasgow, Inverness and, yesterday, Dumfries. In addition, we convened a round-table meeting last November with culture sector public bodies. Those meetings have helped to explore ways in which organisations can best work together to develop shared solutions.

I want to reassure the committee that we have been listening to the intelligence that the sector has provided at those meetings and that we will continue to do everything in our powers and resources to help those who are most affected by the economic crisis.

The 2023-24 budget required us to make extremely hard decisions and to prioritise spending. As I said in my response to this committee’s report on culture funding, we will invest £278 million in Scotland’s culture and heritage sector next year. That will include continued investment in Scotland’s screen industry, with £9.25 million for Screen Scotland, and investment of £72.7 million for Historic Environment Scotland to ensure that it can continue to care for our heritage in communities across Scotland.

We are providing an additional £2.1 million to support increased costs in the national collections. We are also committed to maintaining spend in other areas of the culture budget, including museums, public libraries, the national performing companies, youth music and community-based culture.

Those commitments have required hard choices to be made. Over the past five years, we have provided Creative Scotland with more than £33 million as an additional element of funding in response to a downward trend in arts funding from the National Lottery Community Fund. At a time when we face incredibly difficult decisions about Government funding and with Creative Scotland able to draw on its accumulated lottery reserves, we have discontinued that element of funding. I am grateful that the Creative Scotland board took the decision on 19 December to use lottery reserves to guarantee to its regularly funded organisations that their funding will remain the same for the next financial year.

I know that the committee has concentrated on the culture budget in its pre-budget discussions, but I am also happy to answer questions on other areas of my portfolio, and I will touch briefly on external affairs and the referendum budget.

For external affairs aspects, international engagement continues to be essential to successful delivery of “Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation” and our net zero transition. We are committed to being a good global citizen and to playing our part in tackling global challenges, including Covid-19, climate change, poverty, injustice and inequality, particularly through our international development fund. This budget continues to support that important work.

One of the key priorities for 2023, to which additional funding has been allocated, will be the delivery of the new talent attraction and migration service, which will bring together and expand services for employers and individuals. The service will help employers to use the immigration system to meet their skills and labour needs. It will provide good-quality information and advice to people who are thinking of moving to Scotland or who have just moved here. Scotland must be able to attract people from all over the world to work and study without excessive barriers, and migration policy should support mobility, collaboration and innovation.

On referendum costs, to help our most vulnerable citizens, we intend to utilise the finance that had been earmarked for a referendum on independence—£20 million—to make provision to extend our fuel insecurity fund into next year. I stand open to any questions.

I take the opportunity to support that event as well.

I think that it is fair to put on the record, when discussing Historic Environment Scotland, that the Government has recognised the particular challenge that it is having to deal with, so the agency’s operational budget is rising by 18 per cent, to £114.5 million. That will play a part in the maintenance of property, but it is also for staff pay and a number of other important areas.

I am pleased not only at the good news about Scottish Ballet and what it is doing for health and wellbeing, but that we are beginning to hear some good news about various sites that are reopening. I see, for example, that St Rule’s tower at St Andrews cathedral is reopening on Friday 20 January. Every opening is a significant positive milestone for communities, for which a particular place will be of intrinsic, and tourist and economic, value. At the same time, however, as I am sure Mr Golden and colleagues will appreciate, it is important that Historic Environment Scotland reopens facilities only when it has confidence that the people attending those sites will be safe.

Mr Golden has asked me to give a number. I cannot give him one, but I will be happy to ask Historic Environment Scotland for the latest update on its facilities. In relation to the committee’s deliberations, with the subject of today’s session being where we are with the budget, the Government’s commitment in respect of the budgetary situation for Historic Environment Scotland reflects an understanding that reopening sites is a big challenge for the agency. It will be an on-going challenge, but I am glad that facilities are reopening. When that can happen safely, and as quickly as possible, it is to be welcomed.

It has been unhelpful to have a cliff edge in relation to Covid support funding. Given that everybody has been focused on trying to recover, bounce back and deal with the diminution of reserves that were spent before and during the Covid pandemic, the substantial ending of funding has been problematic. That was pointed out to the UK Government. There has been some intervention in relation to energy costs, but, again, that is coming to an end, although bills remain extremely high.

It is a matter of concern that, when we have all those pressures, the funding decisions endanger the ability of cultural and arts organisations to genuinely bounce back, because, as we have discussed at the committee, public behaviour, among other things, has not immediately snapped back to pre-Covid levels. Although we are seeing good returns from different venues in Scotland, including museums, we are still not back to where we were before.

We have not seen the economic recovery or the return of the public yet—we are encouraging that to happen as quickly as possible—but we have gone from Covid pandemic circumstances to the ending of funding before a recovery has taken place. That endangers the recovery, so it is problematic.

The first thing to be absolutely clear about conceptually is that we are currently effectively aligned with the European Union. That is the starting point. The effort to describe attempts to align with the European Union as being “immense” is misdirection, frankly, because we are currently aligned with the European Union. Legislation is being forced on us as a Government and as a Parliament that will make us go through an entire process to remain aligned, and that is not our choice. It is being foisted on us by the UK Government. Is that significant? Yes, and it is totally unnecessary. We do not need to do it.

If Mr Cameron’s colleagues on the committee in the House of Commons had voted with the other members on the committee last week, we would not need to have this discussion, because Scotland would not have been proceeding with this dealignment only to then have to legislate for realignment. Is that the efficient way of going about it? No, it is not. That is the approach of the UK Government.

Are we going to do everything that we possibly can to be efficient, avoid duplication and do all of those worthy things as part of the process? Yes, absolutely, but please let us not lose sight of what we are dealing with: a legislative proposal by the United Kingdom, unwanted by the Scottish Government and opposed by the Scottish Parliament, which may or may not be subject to the Sewel convention. We do not want it to happen. We are currently aligned with the European Union and we wish to remain aligned with it. We do not need to go through this unnecessary process for the next year—and longer—to do that.

This is on the UK Government, and it is for it to answer why it is going through all of this when, with some more imagination and, frankly, good will, it could have amended the bill and disapplied it to devolved areas of government. That would have been the most efficient approach to the process if the UK Government wanted to go ahead with it for England.