Chamber and committees

I will pick up a bit more on the fair work issues that you discussed a few minutes ago. We have talked about that in the past, and there was also the independent task force report that was produced last December, the best part of a year ago. It would be reasonable to say that a lot of the recommendations in that report, such as the creation of a charter and a delivery board—I cannot remember the exact form of words that was used—would not directly have a big budgetary impact. Even the fund that was proposed in the report was on a fairly modest scale.

Would it be fair to say that, if the effort to improve fair work practices were to be successful, that would have a clear indirect impact on Creative Scotland’s budget? If we are going to raise working standards across the sector, some part of the increased budget will inevitably need to fund that. That is not a criticism, but it is the reality. To what extent is Creative Scotland already changing its practices in relation to what it expects funded organisations to bid for in order to achieve improvements in fair work conditions? Is it a reasonable expectation that some part of the increased funding trajectory, rather than an increased volume of work, will be what delivers those improvements?

(Alastair Evans:) What you described already happens. There are requirements on funded organisations to pay the real living wage and also to have worker representation, and there was a period in which several organisations were working with historic budget levels but were expected to bring those things in, which could have involved costs if that needed to be set up. Those organisations have now been able to reflect such costs in multiyear applications for the 2025 round, and the costs are reflected in the open fund and other applications.

We require all funded organisations to demonstrate the fair work principles, and we have recently extended that approach to national lottery funding. That funding is provided by Westminster through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, so it is not a direct requirement, but we want parity across the sector; we do not want there to be two systems.

The task force report was delivered in the context of change, because there was an employment bill going through Westminster, and there are now initiatives coming through such as the freelance champions that have been appointed by Westminster. I am sure that the Scottish Government will take note of that and, when it responds to the report, try to understand how the landscape has changed since it was published.

In my experience, most organisations that we work with are paying the real living wage, but in circumstances at the margins, such as when people move out of education into working for an organisation, or when organisations are set up as special-purpose vehicles in the screen industry and then expand, we work in that space to ensure that fair work aspirations are being fed through.

It is not really a zero-sum game to pay people better rates and ensure that there is security in their roles in the workforce because, for the most part, the impact on the levels of funding that we can offer will be marginal. However, there will be gains from having a secure workforce that wants to stay in the sector rather than leave it—as we saw happening to some extent during and after Covid—with confidence that their welfare is being addressed and that systemic issues are being considered by national agencies such as us. That would be a big win for the sector, and it is what we and our partners are working on. Many of the organisations in the sector are working on that themselves. They also hear those things from their staff, and they want there to be good terms and conditions and to have good working conditions for their teams.

I expect there to be strong agreement across the committee and the Parliament about what you have said that you want to achieve. I do not want the aspirations that exist in the culture portfolio to be put at risk in the way that I have described, but the reality is that, objectively, it has been shown to be happening for 2025-26. Is there any reason why you or we should be confident that the same pattern will not emerge when we see the outturn figures for 2026-27?

I am sure that you would not wish to dictate to local authorities, and I do not think that we would want you to do so, but I am asking about your expectation. You have told us what you do not want to see, which is increased national spending displacing cuts at local government level. Do you expect to see that?

I will pick up on a couple of themes that have been touched on. Several members touched on local authority funding, and strong concerns were expressed in evidence that we heard prior to the recess. You have said clearly, in relation to both aspects of your portfolio—culture and education—that the local government funding settlement matters a great deal to you. I take that seriously and I respect the point that you have made.

However, we all know how the conversation goes. The Government will say, in any particular year, that it has done the best that it can for local authorities. Local government will respond by saying that one year’s increase has not made up for previous years of below-inflation settlements and that it does not keep pace with inflation or rising demand for local government services. The Government will respond by saying that that is impacting on all of us, including on national Government budgets, and that it is a very difficult time. We all know how that goes.

I do not have the precise form of words that you used, but you were very clear that you do not want to see rising culture spending from the Scottish Government budget displacing local government spending. You said that you do not want to see that impact, but that is what is happening. Local government spend on museums, galleries and library services has remained relatively stable in real terms in the past few years. Those elements of local government spending probably have fixed costs, but the other culture and heritage spend in local government has seen a very sharp decline, particularly in the provisional outturn for 2025-26. That shows a reduction of nearly a third in real terms since 2022-23, and almost all of that cut is in that one year. There was a very minor decline in 2023-24 and again in 2024-25, but 2025-26 sees a sharp decline. We are seeing what you said you did not want to see.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the eighth meeting in 2026 of the Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. We have to record apologies from Senga Beresford, Keith Brown and Colin Beattie. I welcome back to the committee Heather Anderson, who is joining us as a substitute for Colin Beattie.

Our first item of business is a proposal to take in private various items at this week’s meeting and next week’s meeting. Does the committee agree to take in private items 3 to 5 on today’s agenda?

Members indicated agreement.

Our main business is evidence from two panels of witnesses as we complete our pre-budget scrutiny. I welcome the first panel of witnesses, from Creative Scotland. Sadly, we are not joined by Iain Munro, its chief executive, but we are joined by Alastair Evans, its director of strategy, and Martin McGoldrick, its chief operating officer. Thank you very much for joining us.

I will start with a very general opening question. You will be aware of the evidence that we have taken—I am sure that you will have read or listened to the various responses that have been given to members’ questions. What is your response to the evidence that you have heard and the arguments and questions relating to your work that the committee has considered in its pre-budget scrutiny?

A strong argument that comes across in the Scottish Government’s approach to culture and in the evidence base that a lot of other organisations present is that culture is not a standalone portfolio but is deeply connected to the state of Scotland’s economy, health and wellbeing, and education—in some ways, culture engages with every portfolio. There is a notion that, through activity that happens elsewhere, other portfolios contribute in some way to cultural goods and to priorities that sit in your portfolio, such as increasing cultural participation. Do you see the potential for that to express itself in financial terms?

We continue our pre-budget scrutiny with our second panel of witnesses. We welcome Màiri McAllan, the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic, who is joined by Jamie MacDougall, the Scottish Government’s deputy director for culture and historic environment. Cabinet secretary, would you like to make some opening remarks?

Next week, we will consider a draft letter on pre-budget scrutiny, an approach paper for an inquiry into Screen Scotland, a draft response to the Senedd’s Constitution, Justice and External Affairs Committee’s inquiry into its interinstitutional relations agreement, and our approach to devolution oversight and an initial draft oversight report. Do we agree to take all those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

The CMO certainly engaged significantly with our predecessor committee in the previous session on those issues.

I move to other members, and I will start with Pauline Stafford.