Chamber and committees

Will the member give way?

I agree with a great deal of what the cabinet secretary is saying, but does she understand my disappointment that the only two positions with any credibility before us today point the finger exclusively at the other Government? Does she recognise that, whatever the context of the UK Government in terms of power or budgets, the onus is on the Scottish Government to go much further than it has gone, if it wants to be successful in challenging poverty?

There is a great deal in the picture that you are painting that the committee and the sector would welcome—increased resource, long-term certainty and a review of the remit and operations of Creative Scotland. I think that that is welcome. I hope that I am right in hearing from you that you understand that it will take time for the sector to rebuild trust, given the turbulence and the stop-start nature of funding, particularly very recently. It will take time and the delivery of those commitments for that trust and confidence to build, if the Government does commit to that.

There has been some discussion in our evidence taking about the short-term, immediate step—in the coming financial year—towards that £100 million commitment. One witness said to us, if the figure for the coming financial year

“is £20 million, it will not touch the sides”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 19 September 2024; c 12.]

I appreciate that you will not be in a position to give us a figure right now, but do you hear and recognise the evidence that has been given to the committee that clearly indicates that it will have to be significantly more than that, just to be taken seriously?

Thank you.

That is by 2028; I am asking about the coming year.

Thank you for that extensive answer. If there is time later, I may ask a follow-up question on that subject.

Further to the last point that you made, I note that there is also a need for alignment with the timescales that are relevant to individuals and organisations, including small organisations and freelancers. If the disbursement of funding leaves them facing a crunch moment in relation to how their finances work, they can end up not getting the benefit from it.

I want to talk about the relationship with the review, because there is a huge opportunity from the review but there is a danger of a chicken-and-egg or cart-before-horse situation—I am not sure which metaphor is right here—with regard to the relationship between funding and the review of Creative Scotland’s remit and operations.

Let me give you one example of the potential negative consequences that some people may be worried about. Creative Scotland has had some criticism for some of what it has done. An area that is pretty well regarded, as far as I can tell, is Screen Scotland, which is doing pretty well. My view is that the games sector would benefit from a similar high-profile approach, with a similarly high-profile unit within Creative Scotland to look at the games sector, which has sometimes fallen between the creative and enterprise parts of Government.

I know that the Government is serious about the games sector’s potential and has talked about developing a games strategy. However, if the review of Creative Scotland said that, among other things, it should have a more high-profile and well-resourced games unit, is there a risk that the rest of the culture sector would say, “Hang on, we thought that extra £100 million was all for us?” Is there a danger that, in looking at the remit, we end up not seeing all that additional committed money going to what we currently cover in the creative sector but the movement of pots of money within Government?

That is two questions in one: one is about the games sector and the potential for Creative Scotland to do some really good stuff, which I would like to see happen; the other is about the impact on the existing funding streams and the people who benefit from those, if Creative Scotland were to take on something new within that funding of £100 million?

Not really.

My point is that, wherever the decision-making power lies, would the Government like to see it happen?

Thank you convener. Cabinet secretary, you mentioned meetings with the Music Venue Trust. My question is about the longer term rather than the coming financial year. One aspect of reviewing the creative landscape is about diversifying funding sources, so I think that there is some longer-term relevance to my question, and I hope that I can get a yes or no answer. When I raised the idea of a stadium levy, which the Music Venue Trust is arguing could help to fund many independent cultural venues, your answer was mostly focused on whether it is a devolved or reserved matter and whether it could happen in Scotland or would need to be UK-wide. Does the Scottish Government wants to see a stadium levy happen, and does it want it to be used for that purpose?

The world’s failure to address Israel’s impunity, to protect civilians or to prevent war crimes has made the escalation of violence in the middle east inevitable. Through devolved funding decisions, the Scottish Government has a role to play here. There have been far too many deaths: there were the brutal killings that occurred on 7 October 2023; genocide has been inflicted on the people of Gaza; we have seen the bombardment and invasion of Lebanon; and now the world faces the imminent threat of full-scale regional war. We need an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and de-escalation in the wider region. However, the Prime Minister continues to provide arms and political support to Israel regardless of the consequences.

Given that devolved funding decisions are involved, what is the First Minister’s response to the crisis? Will he join the Scottish Greens in calling for de-escalation and for the United Kingdom Government to end its complicity in the war crimes that are being inflicted on Palestinians and others?