Chamber and committees

I hope that it is clear that my criticism of the Government motion is not a criticism of what is in it. If the motion is presented to Parliament unamended, of course I will agree with what is in it.

My criticism of the motion is of what is lacking in it—what is missing—which is any self-reflection on the track record of the Scottish Government and the things that the Scottish Government can do, as opposed to only what it cannot do. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament must use every available power. That case stands on its own merits, but it is all the stronger if we seek to convince the people of Scotland to take on more power and continue the journey towards self-government.

The additional measures that are urgently needed from the Scottish Government include reversing the harmful decisions on peak rail fares and on free school meals; cutting the cost of public transport compared with higher-carbon modes; making the country’s infrastructure investment the heat in buildings programme rather than a road-building programme that will lock in high costs as well as high-carbon modes of transport; fulfilling the promise of rent controls; and funding all those measures not just from a redistribution of the capital budget but from continued steps towards progressive taxation. Perhaps less scope is left to do that on income tax, but there is a huge opportunity to do it on local taxation—through progressive local tax reform, which has stalled since the Bute house agreement ended and which the Scottish Government needs to pick up—as well as making progress towards a minimum income guarantee. We cannot fulfil that completely with current powers, but the groundwork can and must be laid.

I hope that we can expect more in the years to come, including a serious change of direction from the UK Government, but I am determined to continue making the case that the Scottish Government can and must do more, even within the constraints that it faces when it comes to power and budgets.

I am grateful to the member for giving way, although I am not quite sure that I am grateful for her expressing agreement with my position so clearly. Would she reflect on why she got it so wrong when she once called for the minimum wage to be abolished? How on earth does she think we can tackle poverty without ensuring that poverty wages are abolished?

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?