Chamber and committees

Good morning, cabinet secretary. My thoughts go out to all those people affected by the loss of innocent civilian life in Israel and Palestine, and to all those with loved ones in the region, including the First Minister. Our thoughts and support are with him.

On the number of families in Scotland affected by the current conflict, what dialogue has the Scottish Government had with the British Government to estimate, as far as is possible in a very difficult and challenging situation, how many UK nationals from Scotland are currently in Israel and Gaza? I appreciate that the situation is very difficult, but what assessment can be made of their welfare? What more can be done to get a better understanding of the situation that is affecting UK nationals from Scotland who are in the region?

Thank you for that answer. One area where the Government has not matched its ambition with investment is the £6.6 million—or 10 per cent—cut to Creative Scotland’s budget, which you promised not to proceed with in February, but have gone ahead with in September. The amount of money is vastly important to the sector but in the context of the overall Scottish budget, it is about 0.1 per cent. We know the benefits that the culture sector provides to the economy, health and the justice sector, as you have mentioned already. Are those just warm words? People who are watching this meeting would say, “Your acknowledgment of the benefits of the culture sector is plain, cabinet secretary, but you are cutting our budget at a time when we need that resource.” If you really think that the sector represents value for money and is of benefit to the wider society, not just the culture sector, why are you proceeding with every penny of those cuts?

Are there no get-out caveats that you want to tell us about now?

You gave an assurance in February.

Good morning. You will be aware that we have heard alarming evidence over recent weeks about the funding crisis that is affecting the culture sector. Even before last week’s announcement, Creative Scotland was warning that up to a third of the 120 regularly funded organisations are at serious risk of insolvency in the short term and that more than half are financially weak.

Literature Alliance Scotland said:

“If Government funding was to be cut or remain at standstill it would be a disaster.”

Museums Galleries Scotland talked about a

“hollowing out of museums services”.

The association for culture and leisure professionals, VOCAL Scotland, said:

“the level of publicly funded cultural service provision has been depleted to the most basic level.”

Prospect said:

“We are at the breaking point”.

The Federation of Scottish Theatre said:

“continued lack of public investment … may result in what could very easily be seen as a wilful demise of the culture sector as we know it.”

Earlier, you mentioned that the Scottish Government is talking about a new culture strategy and vision, but the evidence that the committee is getting from multiple stakeholders makes it clear that, although there is considerable ambition from the Government, the levels of investment do not match that. We have heard you talk about the importance of the culture sector this morning, but there is a feeling that this is the very definition of setting the culture sector up to fail—having that level of ambition without making the investment. Are those stakeholders right or wrong?

As the cabinet secretary said, reserves are there for difficult times. The Campaign for Arts has said that they are there for emergencies, but not emergencies created by the Scottish Government as a result of the funding decisions that it has made. There is huge anger out there. A petition has been launched, which has been signed by 13,000 people. We have had the Equity union outside Parliament, and members of the cabinet secretary’s own party are very concerned about the cuts.

Cabinet secretary, you have mentioned that the finance secretary and the Deputy First Minister have made a commitment that funding will be restored next year. What is that worth? Given that you have reneged on your promise this year over funding, why should anyone in the culture sector believe that you are going to introduce it next year?

I am aware of the pressures. The point is that you were aware of the pressures in February when you made the promise.

A number of times, you have cited inflation as being the reason behind the decision to cut the £6.6 million. There are huge cost of living and inflationary pressures that affect the Government and many people in the culture sector, too. When the promise was made to provide that essential funding of £6.6 million, inflation was running at 10.4 per cent. Over the past few months, it has fallen to 6.7 per cent. I want to be clear that that remains far too high. If inflationary pressures were the reason for reneging on the promise, why was it made in the first place, when inflation was at 10.4 per cent? When did it become clear that you would not be able to keep the promise? Was it a promise that, deep down, you knew that you could not keep?

People accepted your assurance in February, but that turned out to not be worth anything—literally. Is the commitment for next year a gold-plated commitment?

A commitment was given in February, and you have talked about the pressures that the cabinet secretary discussed with you yesterday. You mentioned pay. Is it your understanding that this budget is potentially being used for pay settlements elsewhere in the public sector?