���˿���

I have some more general questions. At the beginning, you helpfully outlined the fact that, when one line in the Scottish Government budget goes up, another must fall. That is a basic fact of maths. All members hear lots of calls for increased funding for things such as the NHS and local government, all of which are legitimate. When was the last time that someone came to you and said, “Here is an idea for increasing the budget line for culture. Take it from here.”?

That leads to a follow-up question. Clearly, the bulk of the budget is set by block grant and is fixed, and we are all very aware of the economic challenges, including inflation, energy costs and the fact that our economy is not growing with the speed that we would like to see. I was really struck by Creative Scotland’s written evidence that culture is a huge economic driver. From memory, the gross value added cultural contribution has increased by 62 per cent since 2010, while the Creative Scotland workforce has increased by 9 per cent. That fact tells its own story about culture as an economic driver.

What can be done in the coming years to continue supporting the culture sector in making that massive contribution? How do we ensure that that contribution is recognised as widely as possible?

I will comment rather than ask a question—feel free to comment in return. The sector is also a bulwark against depopulation, because situating organisations such as MG Alba outside the central belt—and not even on the mainland—at a time of growth attracts huge numbers of people to the islands who might not have otherwise lived in the islands. It is not just about that stark national growth but about the disproportionate impact on our islands.

Thanks, convener, and welcome, cabinet secretary.

Last week, we had Creative Scotland in front of us expressing, as it has in the public realm, some concerns about recent funding decisions. I have a few questions about that issue, and to start with, I want to go back to your opening statement, which contained a lot of information.

Just for absolute clarity, can you explain to us whether, as a result of recent decisions, any culture organisation has seen an unexpected change in its funding allocation for this year? How much information did you have and how much discussion took place with Creative Scotland before you came to any of the recent decisions? Finally, what are you promising in your statement with regard to the budget impact this year and in subsequent years as a result of some of these particular pressures now being managed corporately and centrally rather than by the culture portfolio?

So it is a question of cash rather than the budget itself. In other words, it is the cash being allocated in two weeks’ time, not the budget being agreed.

I understand.

What impact will this have on reserves? I take your point that this is a one-off and that by their nature reserves should not be used for on-going resource payments, but what percentage or proportion of reserves does the £6.6 million form?

Are you able to share with us the quantum of the reserves position?

Good morning. I want to ask a series of quick questions just to clarify some of the points that you have made.

First, you said that you allocate funding four times a year, with the next allocation in two weeks’ time. Were the organisations expecting that funding in full on the basis of the additional £6.6 million, or had they still to receive confirmation?

Thank you for all that you do to contribute to Scotland’s culture.

You might have heard my question in the previous evidence session highlighting the fact that our budget challenges arise from a stagnating economy, inflation and a budget that over the past 10 years has been shaped largely by austerity. Of course, we are very much focusing in this conversation on one side of the balance sheet—that is, your costs—but I want to read out some figures that jumped out at me in Creative Scotland’s submission. The gross value added of Scotland’s creative industries has increased by 62 per cent since 2010, while staffing has increased by only 9 per cent. That means that fewer people are contributing enormously to Scotland’s economy, which should be a cause for great celebration.

I have three questions, but because there are a lot of witnesses, I am just going to throw them all out at the same time and you can pick and choose which to respond to. First, do you feel that that enormous economic contribution is fully recognised in conversations about funding, whether it be public, private or third sector funding? Secondly, how has the balance of those different sources in the funding mix changed in your organisations? Lastly, what are the funding opportunities in the coming year for continuing that trajectory of contributing to Scotland’s economic prosperity, which, in turn, raises the revenue to reinvest?

I have one last question. I had a quick look at the correspondence from the finance secretary—I was not here at the time—allocating the additional £6.6 million. I believe that that was in March—you may correct me—which was close to the beginning of the financial year. Did that allow you to reinstate funding to organisations that would otherwise have received nothing, or was it a case of increasing the quantum that was available to all the organisations that you fund?