In the draft 2025-26 budget, you have allocated a sum of £349 million for energy efficiency and decarbonisation. You have indicated that the previous money was not spent but that you will try to continue to fund the budget line and spend the money that is left. Now you are allocating another £349 million. Can you tell us how that money will be spent to maximum effect and how you can ensure that the budget is fully spent? At the end of the day, that is what we are trying to achieve. You can allocate funding, but if it is not used and then you allocate more, the question is this: how effective is that? How do we fully spend the sums of money that you are allocating?

On the financial stability of local government, we have talked in the past about where we are and how confident the Scottish Government is that it has the data that it requires to assess the financial stability of local authorities. We have also talked in the past about the debt and the reserve levels of local authorities.

Given the pessimistic outlook from the Local Government Information Unit’s recent survey, which gave us concern, what are the Scottish Government’s views on local government when it comes to the debt and reserves that specific councils have and their financial sustainability? It is a major issue for local authorities that what they can deal with depends on what they have in their reserves. Some have large reserves and some have very little, but all councils seem to have debt.

How does local government play its role in just transition and net zero, given the conditions of existing infrastructure? We have to manage with ageing schools, libraries, council buildings, leisure centres and road networks. Are councils sufficiently funded to take the action that is required to meet the targets in 2045?

Good morning. Individuals and organisations have said that the re-election of Donald Trump does not change much of the position that we find ourselves in, but that it does change the outlook and the opportunities that might have existed in the past. That is because Mr Trump is no longer as sympathetic to the UK Government as he might have been in his first term of office. That leaves institutions and individuals in a little bit of a dilemma as to how to manage things.

Moreover, some believe that securing deeper trade relations with the US would jeopardise some of the proposed reset with the EU, because the new UK Government wants to see a reset with the EU and Donald Trump would be against that. That might create some difficulties for the new Westminster Government when it comes to relations.

However, we should consider the fact that Trump will seek to deal with tariffs—we have already had the threat of tariffs being imposed—and, if there was to be any negotiation, we might want to align with the idea of putting more tariffs on China, which could benefit the UK in some ways.

It would be good to hear the views of you learned individuals about that and what it could mean. I do not believe that the reset with Europe will do anything other than turn the American President against the United Kingdom, because of the way that that is perceived in relation to what might happen in the future generally and particularly over the next three or four years. Maybe Peter Holmes could answer first.

Thank you. I know that time is tight, convener.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Much has been made of the welcome funding in the proposed budget, but every organisation and individual that we have heard from has said that it is too little, too late. It will not stop the rot and it will not deal with the fact that confidence and trust in the sector are at an all-time low. Over the past few weeks, we have heard from individuals and organisations that the pay awards, the reduction in the working week, the increase in national insurance contributions and the building maintenance backlog will mean that libraries, venues, theatres and museums will all struggle to survive, let alone thrive, even with the additional funding that is proposed.

The sector is still not managing to progress. This morning, you have provided information about other organisations, many of which are pioneers. They must deal with the reality of having to do less. They might have to close or decrease in size and pay off people. That will happen in the sector in the foreseeable future.

I welcome the fact that Dame Sue Bruce has been appointed to deal with the review. During the past few months and years, we have heard that Creative Scotland has not been fit for purpose in relation to some of the ways in which it has managed the organisation and continues to do so. I hope that the review will be balanced and provide the opportunity to look at that. As you rightly indicate, cabinet secretary, we should all participate in the process and give our views and opinions.

The governance and scrutiny of, and confidence and trust in, Creative Scotland have been diminished because of its deeds and actions in the sector. It has not always taken advice from the professional bodies and the individuals who manage and co-ordinate things, and I hope that that will change as we go through the review. Whether Creative Scotland survives or another arts organisation takes its place, I hope that we can be confident that it will work hand in hand with the organisations and our outstanding performers. In recent times, there has not be much respect for the organisation within the sector, which has been and continues to be a problem.

I am pleased to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, and I will support the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser.

Scotland can be proud of the cultural footprint that it leaves on the world stage, and I have no doubt that members on all sides of the chamber agree about the importance of Scotland’s culture sector. In the debate, we have heard about the multibillion-pound value of the sector and the tens of thousands of jobs that it supports. In reality, however, the value of the culture sector is much greater than just the numbers. I therefore welcome the fact that Parliament has had an opportunity to debate the subject today, and I welcome the speeches that we have heard.

Scotland’s culture sector should be celebrated, but we know that it is facing a number of on-going challenges. I have spoken in previous debates about the closure of many important historic sites across Scotland, and there are still sites that are at risk. Scotland’s buildings tell us important stories about Scotland’s culture, and it is vital that people have opportunities to see them. Their potential should not be wasted through long-term closures. I repeat my party’s calls for buildings that have been closed to be reopened. To that end, I welcome the fact that Historic Environment Scotland began inspection work on Dunfermline abbey last week in order to identify potential problems and safeguard the site.

Turning to the challenges that are being faced in other parts of our culture sector, I note members’ comments on libraries. They are vital links in communities, but there are difficulties and potential closures, including in Perth and Kinross and in Stirling. Innovative measures and initiatives such as the public library improvement fund are welcome, but they do not go far enough in managing the challenges.

In the debate, we have heard about the challenges that local government is facing. Councils are still being asked to do more with less, and they are having to make choices. Last week, I raised in the chamber the cuts that are being made to music tuition across Scotland. As a lifelong campaigner for music and the arts, I raise that issue again today. As we have heard, Stirling Council has proposed a cut of £250,000 to its music education budget. I have stood up for that tuition and have challenged individuals in the council on that proposal, and I will continue to do that to make sure that the cut does not happen.

We must not see the removal of that funding, because it would mean fewer opportunities for young people to sit music exams and participate in choirs, bands and youth orchestras. That is not the way forward. A petition that has been launched on the matter, which is titled “Save Our Children’s Music”, attracted thousands of signatures in a matter of days. One of its key supporters is the “Downton Abbey” composer John Lunn, who has talked about his life in Bridge of Allan and who credits much of his success to Stirling Council’s music services. We have to listen to such individuals when they tell us what is happening on the ground.

I am a proud advocate for music tuition. In the debate, we have heard about the importance of learning skills and the vital work of the Big Noise programme in Stirling, which is in my region. However, we cannot ignore the difficulties that we have seen over the past 18 years of this SNP Government. It has continued to support the sector, but not enough has been done over that timescale, and what has been done has been too little, too late.

The cabinet secretary talked about the value of culture. Of course it has a value, and community culture is vital, but the creative industries require to be supported. They have had a difficult time. The cabinet secretary acknowledged that, but there have been issues with trust and confidence within the sector, which have taken some dents during his time as Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture. I look forward to the conclusion of the review of Creative Scotland and to hearing what will happen next.

In his opening speech, Murdo Fraser talked about the relationship between local and national Government, which is vital to supporting the sector and giving it what it wants. We all welcome the uplift, but the budget pressures that companies are facing, given the pay awards and the Westminster Government’s increasing of national insurance contributions, are having a massive impact on the sector, and arts venues, libraries and other spaces are facing cuts.

Neil Bibby said that the money was too little, too late and talked about the hokey cokey that has taken place, with the budgets going back and forward.

Alex Cole-Hamilton said that the sector deserves support, and he talked about the flagship festivals that happen in Edinburgh. He was right to acknowledge that the companies have a shadow hanging over them.

Pam Gosal talked about the creative side of life—the volunteers and the people who play roles in music, art, dance and theatre, and the impact of the Asian communities in all of that. She talked about their diversity and how they will give their support for the arts to prosper. Festivals such as Diwali and Eid are vitally important.

Once again, Stephen Kerr gave a robust speech based on his insight into what is taking place in culture. He talked about the governance and transparency of Creative Scotland, and it has to be acknowledged that there is still a problem with those.

Across the piece, we have heard about the pay awards, the reduction in the working week, the increase in national insurance contributions and the need to save music tuition.

Scotland’s culture is steeped in creativity. Our art and music are a credit to us and to the nation. I hope that the Scottish Government can continue to ensure that the culture sector provides and is provided with the support that is deserved and needed. However, as I have said, we have to acknowledge that much more needs to be done to secure the sector’s future. Arts, music and culture matter. Trust and confidence also matter in that sector, and, at the moment, we still have a long way to go to achieve those.

Thank you.

Whoever wants to jump in first can do so. Do not be shy.