 Good morning, everyone, and a warm welcome to the 27th meeting of the Constitution, Europe, Exxon, Affairs and Culture Committee in 2023. Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Are members content to consider the draft report on how is devolution changing post-EU in private at this meeting and future meetings, and to consider draft report on the pre-budget scrutiny 24-25 in private in future meetings? Agree. Agenda item 2 is to take evidence as part of our pre-budget scrutiny on funding for culture from. A very warm welcome this morning. I'm Grace Robertson at MSP, Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Exxon, Affairs and Culture. He's joined by Penelope Cooper, director of culture and major events at the Scottish Government, so welcome to you both. I invite Mr Robertson to make a brief opening statement. Thanks very much, convener. Good morning, colleagues. Thanks for your invitation to contribute to the committee's discussion on the 2024-25 pre-budget scrutiny and for the opportunity to make some opening comments to you. I'm a passionate supporter of the culture sector, and the fundamental role that creativity and self-expression can play in everyone's lives, along with the economic value of cultural exports for Scotland, is crucial for our international connections, our ambitions, and our reputation. However, we all recognise the challenges that the sector has experienced through the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. Its international engagement has been directly impacted by Brexit, and that has led to financial fragility in parts of the sector, and the support for these cultural organisations has never been more critical. I appreciate that the sector is very concerned about what the future holds in terms of Scottish Government funding and support, and the responses that are seen to this committee's call for views on culture budgets make somber and extremely stark reading. I recognise the strength of feeling expressed by the culture sector this week over the funding for Creative Scotland, and I will address that shortly. I'd like to reassure you that I understand and appreciate the difficult situation that the sector is facing, and I've been discussing with my cabinet colleagues about the important role that culture can play across the piece and pushing for the best possible settlement for the sector for next year. However, none of us are under any illusions about the challenges that are faced in our public finances. To illustrate that, the 2023-24 pay round will see an estimated additional £785 million spent on pay compared to our original central pay assumptions. That includes the agreed pay deals for teachers, that includes the agreed pay deals for NHS agenda for change, for doctors, for junior doctors, for dentists, for the fire service, plus the proposed offers of non-teaching local government staff, for the police and the Scottish Government's two-year offer. That figure also includes pay assumptions on the deals for further education and for the judiciary. To enable enhanced pay deals, we've had to make difficult decisions to re-prioritise existing allocations. However, as all committees know, there is no unallocated pot of money from which to fund higher pay deals or extra support for those in need. If the pay bill grows faster than our overall funding, it squeezes our wider capacity to maintain services. Every additional percentage point on a pay deal and every pound that we spend on measures to help with rising costs must be funded by reductions elsewhere in our budgets. Last year, we prioritised funding for enhanced public sector pay deals to support those who need help most, spending over £900 million more than originally budgeted. However, alongside that, I recognise that the culture sector needs stability and the opportunity for longer-term planning and development. We're committed to developing a fair of funding approach for the wider third sector of which culture organisations are a key contributor. I've had to make very tough choices to balance my budget this year in light of all of those challenges. It's with regret that this includes not being able to top up Creative Scotland's lottery funding shortfall for this year. I know that the sector is frustrated by that, but it's worth highlighting that the Scottish Government has topped up lottery funding for five years, two years more than were originally agreed. That has meant providing an extra £33 million over the five years to Creative Scotland. I discussed this with the Board of Creative Scotland last week, and I was very grateful that the Board agreed to use its accumulated funding reserves to avoid passing on any impacts of this decision to its regularly funded organisations. I've assured the Board that the funding will be provided next year, subject to the normal parliamentary processes, and I've discussed this with the Deputy First Minister. We have an obligation to balance the Scottish Government budget each year and prioritise funding to deliver the best value for every taxpayer in Scotland, and as a result of rising costs and pressures on budgets across Government, made more challenging as a result of UK inflation, we are continuing to work with partners to ensure that all public investment is used to deliver the maximum benefit for communities and organisations across Scotland. This year, we saw funding from the Scottish Government and partners across the country to help to deliver the 2023 UCI Cycling World Championships. The event helped to promote the health and wellbeing benefits of cycling and drive wider economic and social benefits across Scotland, but due to increased costs, including inflation, the total funding provided by the Scottish Government and partners to support the delivery of the championships is in the process of being finalised, and final costs will be confirmed in due course, but are of the order of £8 million. Scottish Government funding for the event prior to its completion was delivered through our major events budget, but since the conclusion of the event, any additional funding that may be required will be managed centrally by the Scottish Government. The programme for government 2023 commits us to produce a plan to deliver improvements, including greater clarity and consistency of existing arrangements, recognising the third sector's strategic role in enabling the transformation and delivery of person-centred services to the people of Scotland. We will continue to build the case for the multi-year funding and will explore the extent of which it can be secured within unpredictable economic circumstances. Culture can also play a valuable preventative role in health settings, and evidence has shown that participation in cultural events and activities can promote lifelong health and wellbeing, reduce social isolation, increase resilience and confidence, and give individuals an increased sense of purpose and belonging to their communities. As announced in the programme for government, we will publish a refresh culture strategy action plan later this year, and the culture strategy will set out a vision that recognises the value of culture and its power to inspire, enrich and transform our lives and communities. Our action plan will set out what actions we will take in response to the challenges brought about by this changed landscape. This commitment reaffirms my aim to place culture as a central consideration across all policy areas, making clear how culture can deliver on a range of priority outcomes, improving health and wellbeing, supporting a thriving economy, raising educational attainment, tackling inequality and realising a greener future. It is more important than ever to work together to explore areas such as sharing back-office functions, maximising income through philanthropy and, perhaps more importantly, enabling organisations to become more sustainable. In a time of limited resource collaboration, rather than competition, will be of significant benefit to the wider sector. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, and there is a lot of food for thought in all of that. If I could ask an opening general question, you know that we have just published our report on culture and communities and your latter statements about the wellbeing and the opportunities that are there for wider society from culture are echoed throughout that report. I wonder if you could say a little bit about how your discussions have gone with colleagues in cabinet with regards to mainstreaming and how the budget has set out will support those ambitions for this year? That is a very live, on-going and continuing conversation. It is one that will continue to add infinitum so long as the Government is committed to mainstreaming culture across Government and realising the full potential benefits of culture and the arts sector across Government. I think that there are aspects of that which we have not fully understood the potential of. I think that people around the table should say, incidentally, sorry, a warm welcome to the new members of the committee for whom this is my first evidence session before you. As I have mentioned in previous evidence sessions, I think that it is clear to most that there are benefits that everybody understands that can accrue in health, in education, perhaps in justice and other policy areas. However, I think that most people think of that in terms of whether that might benefit people who are patients in health or who might be children or young people in education or might be prisoners in a justice setting. However, it is not just that. It is about the people who are working in the health service as well. It is the people who are teaching. It is about the people who work in our justice system as well. I think that there are real opportunities that we need to explore but explore in the round. If it is possible by making interventions that can help with mental health, anxiety and a whole range of things that impact on the workforce, as well as patients and pupils and so on, I think that there is hope to believe that not only will this be intrinsically of value to all the people that it might help, but it could have an impact and there is some evidence to show this on working patterns as well in public services. We need to understand across government that not only is it potentially something that costs, but it is also something that brings savings. We all understand the beyond financial advantages, but there is a financial dimension to all of that. I look forward to working with my colleagues on helping people to understand that it is not just a cost to mainstream culture or introduce social prescribing as an example. It also brings benefits that offsets existing outgoings. I am going to bring Ms Forbes in first. Ms Forbes has indicated to me that she has a number of questions. If there are supplementaries on those questions, I will bring members in, but otherwise I will then come to different lines of questioning that I can invite us first. We obviously had Creative Scotland in front of us last week expressing some concerns, as they also did in the public realm, about recent funding decisions. I have had a few questions about that. The starting place is to go back to your statement, because there is a lot of information in that statement. For absolute clarity, can you explain to us, as a result of recent decisions, has any culture organisation seen an unexpected change in their funding allocation for this year? How much information and how much discussion did you have with Creative Scotland before coming to any of the recent decisions? Lastly, what is it that you are promising in your statement in terms of budget impact this year and in subsequent years, as a result of some of those pressures now being managed corporately and centrally rather than by the culture portfolio? There is a lot in all of that. I can do no better than quote from Ian Monroe from Creative Scotland in his evidence to you that the use of reserves by Creative Scotland will enable us, Creative Scotland, to maintain the payment for the regularly funded organisations as planned without the cut being applied. He then went on to say that, given that the £6.6 million is a one-off and that we are using our reserves to offset it, we are protecting the balance of the reserves position to enable transition support as far as we reasonably can and then goes on to say that it stabilises the situation. From Creative Scotland's perspective, and I am immensely grateful for the collaborative approach that we are taking to the funding pressures that we are all having to manage, in effect what we have been able to do is ensure that there is no impact on Scotland's cultural organisations as a result of the funding decision. There are discussions that will take place about next year's finances and the year after that. The commitment has been given for £6.6 million from this year. It will be paid during the next financial year. For those who may have been given an impression that there is going to be a cut, that is going to be imposed on cultural organisations as a result of this decision, that is factually inaccurate. I do not think that it is particularly helpful given the wider concerns that are quite rightly there about the financial pressures that there are on the cultural sector. To the wider point, the first thing to reflect on is that the particular challenge that we are facing right now is that we are coming towards the end of a financial year. What happens when you are in a financial year in which there have been unprecedented additional cost pressures—and I outlined those in terms of all the funding settlements for pay—means that money needs to be found elsewhere, but one has already allocated a significant part of the annual spend throughout the earlier part of the year. One is looking at a much smaller part of the budget for the end of the year, but with a reduced amount of money to deal with that. That is why we are in this particularly challenging situation of in-year budget finance. As you would expect something in my position to do, you have to look at that and work out what are the options to do that. I think that the best way of explaining it is that there are three dimensions to the funding challenge that we face within this portfolio. One was related to major events, which are part of the portfolio, as you know. Those major events during this year have included the UCI world cycling championships, which I think by common consensus have been an amazing success for Scotland, but they have incurred extra costs. The second part of the funding challenge related to the last payment to Creative Scotland within the financial year of £6.6 million, and you have a remainder, which is the uncontracted remaining spend in the culture area. Given that particular challenge, we need to find a solution to all of those three things. They are not going to go away, and we have to face them. What are we going to do with that? To the first part of the equation—I have acknowledged that that is, although the finalised figure needs to be worked out—off the order of an £8 million amount that is required in relation to the UCI cycling world championships, something that brought benefit across Scotland and across government that the Scottish Government has agreed that this is something that should be born across government rather than simply within the portfolio. That is a hugely significant decision for the portfolio, which is the second smallest in the Scottish Government. That kind of amount is very significant in terms of the spending that we have. The second challenge in terms of the end-of-year finance related to Creative Scotland and the £6.6 million payment. By Creative Scotland making the decision that it did to use reserves means that the Scottish Government and our budget, which is under significant pressure, that challenge is obviated from a Government point of view and is obviated from the point of view of the regularly funded organisations that are expecting their payments imminently. I understand that Creative Scotland is in the process of informing them that they are going to be paid as they were expecting to be paid and have the assurance on that. What that then leaves is the final amount in terms of the uncontracted spend for the rest of the year. I am confident that we are going to be able, as a result of making decisions in these three areas, there will be challenges, of course, but we will be able to make sure that we are able to fund areas right across the culture portfolio, which would have otherwise been under threat without the opportunity of using reserves. That is the key thing to understand about trying to find a solution to these funding pressures. None of that is easy. It is involved with colleagues in government, in the culture sector to work with us to make sure that we can get ourselves in the best possible situation, in this very challenging situation. I think that we have achieved a good result, given those pressures. Sorry, did I answer all of your questions that were packaged in one? It is a key not to follow-up for clarity, and then I will stop. I bring Mr Ruskell in and I will come back to Kate and take both questions together, thanks. I think that the knob of the concern from the creative sector was about the demand on the multi-year fund that Creative Scotland has set up and the expectation that organisations that were not getting approval for multi-year funding would then be able to apply for a separate fund that would have come out of Creative Scotland's reserves for more single-year funding. That is the hub of the concern that we have had from Creative Industry. Can you explain how the current set of decisions really impact on that? Will Creative Scotland still be able to fund those organisations that have not been successful in achieving multi-year funding, but still are very much on the brink and still need that year-on-year funding in order to survive into next financial year? I absolutely acknowledge that that is where the concern lies for people. For those watching our proceedings who are hearing all of this terminology around culture funding, the importance of multi-year funding is one that I think we all understand. It is a new approach which I think has cross-party support as being the best way for cultural organisations and I think there is a wish to roll that out more widely into the third sector. It is a way of helping organisations not have to apply every single year for funding. Instead, when the strong case is made for financial support, one receives it for a three-year period and that is going to be to the benefit of cultural organisations. As Mr Ruskell has indicated, that is a change from the current situation. There is an expectation that many of our leading cultural organisations will be in receipt of multi-year funding, but there is a concern among some that they will not receive that. Creative Scotland has been working very hard to try and find a way of making sure that they are still financially supported. That, for them, is the requirement for the use of their reserves. I am wearing a background. I think that many people who have watched this will have watched last week's session as well, and they will be in the thick of it in terms of putting in applications. I suppose that the question is, come back to the question, is what changes now? Nothing changes. There is no detriment. Creative Scotland will be introducing its multi-annual payment system next year so that it would not be calling on the reserves right now within this financial year to deal with the change to this multi-annual funding system. It will be receiving £6.6 million, which is an offset from lost income in relation to the national lottery. We are stepping in to help Creative Scotland, and we have been doing that more than we were expected to do. We will be doing so again next year, but to the key point of will this have an impact on the ability of Creative Scotland to introduce multi-year funding to have the means at their disposal in the quantum that they were hoping to have, it will make no difference that there will be zero detriment. You will be aware that we have heard alarming evidence over the recent weeks over the funding crisis affecting the culture sector. Even before last week's announcement that Creative Scotland will be warning up to a third of the 120. Regularly funded organisations are at serious risk of insolmency in the short term in over half of financial the week. Literature Alliance Scotland said that if Government funding was to cut or remain at standstill, it would be a disaster. Museums Gallery Scotland has talked about hauling out of museum services. Vocal has talked about the level of publicly funded cultural service provision has been depleted to the most basic level prospect. We are at breaking point. Federation of Scottish Theatres continued lack of public investment, may result in what could be very easily seen as the willful demise of the culture sector, as we know it. You mentioned earlier that the Scottish Government is talking about a new culture strategy and vision, but it is clear the evidence that we are getting from multiple stakeholders that we have been talking to are saying that although there is considerable ambition from the Government, the levels of investment do not match that ambition. 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 up the culture sector to fail having that level of ambition but not having that investment. Do you think that they are right or wrong? I think that cultural organisations are right to describe the pressures under which they are operating. As we have heard in previous sessions and I have given evidence to you before, we are well aware of organisations. We have seen the film house, we have seen dance base, we have seen additional requirements for the likes of the King's Theatre, and we have seen other organisations that have been flagging up that they are under significant financial pressure. We acknowledge that, and that is why we have been working with Creative Scotland, who have been working and continue to work with organisations that are facing particular financial challenges. I entirely acknowledge the evidence that has been given that there is a wish for culture to receive additional funding. If I am able to secure additional funding for culture, that is exactly what I would like to see happen. At the same time, we also need to approach the funding and support of culture in other ways as well. If it is possible for us to help in terms of commercial income to the cultural sector, we need to do that. If it is possible to secure additional support from philanthropy, that is something that we need to do. Right across the piece, we are focused on absolutely making sure that the Government provides the maximum funding that we are able to secure. I refer Mr Bibby to the wider financial pressures that we had. It is not as simple as saying that we would like more money and then magically more money appears, because he understands that things are such that, if we want more money from here, it means that costs need to be borne elsewhere or cuts need to be made elsewhere. That is not a simple situation. Having said that, I think that there is an understanding not just of the pressures that have been shared with the committee but of the significant benefit that is accrued, not least to the Scottish economy, from the creative sector. Again, you have received evidence of the financial benefit that is brought from festivals, as a good example, that is brought from the screen sector when measured against the amount of money that is invested from the public purse. There is a really strong financial case and a really strong wider societal case because of the role that culture plays in terms of social inclusion, health and wellbeing, and all of those things are key priorities to the Scottish Government. We need to make sure that we match the ambition of all of those things with the funding that we can secure in extremely press financial time. If colleagues on the committee and other parties have particular suggestions about how that can be best achieved, I would be pleased to hear that. Thank you for that answer. One area where the Government has not matched its ambition with investment is the 6.6 million and 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 in the context of the overall Scottish budget. I think that it is about 0.1 per cent. We know the benefits that the culture sector provides to the economy, to health and to the justice sector. You have mentioned that already. The issue is that that is just one word, because people watching this would say that they acknowledge the benefits of the culture sector as playing cabinet secretary, but they are cutting their budget at a time when we need that resourcing. If you really think that it represents value for money, if you really think that it will benefit to the wider society, not just the culture sector, why are you proceeding with those cuts and every penny of those cuts? The key word is there, and I have mentioned it a number of times, is reserves. Where we are in a position not just in the culture sector but right across Government, if there are parts of the public sector that are in a position to hold reserves and reserves are there for when we are in times of duress, is that if reserves are going to make a material difference to the extreme situation that we find there, frankly, they should be used. That is exactly what is happening. It is very important, and I have now said it a number of times, and it is really important to land this point, that there is zero cut being passed on to regularly funded organisations in the culture sector because reserves are being used now, which will be replenished in Greater Scotland's budgetary terms next year. I have also explained the rationale as to why there is a difference between the start of this year and the end of this year, given the massive additional and unforeseen pressures that have been brought to bear on public finances in Scotland. To answer Mr Bibby's point, the key point in all of this is reserves, and Creative Scotland has reserves because the Scottish Government has provided funding to it, and it has been able to build up those reserves. Given that and my explanation about the three areas of particular pressure on the portfolio budget, if that was not going to be done, then that amount of money would then have counted against all of the remaining uncontracted spend in the culture budget. You can take it from me that if we think that people's concerns in relation to Creative Scotland's budgetary situation, even with the use of reserves, is significant, I can assure Mr Bibby that that would be of considerable order higher as a concern in the culture sector. I think that we have managed to get ourselves into a situation where the Scottish Government is recognising that when there are major events where there is a potential for additional costs associated with them, that those should be borne across Government. I think that that is a really good result for culture. I think that in terms of Creative Scotland's situation, without detriment and with no impact to regularly funded organisations because they have reserves and that position will be maintained next year, we have the best of potential outcome given those three challenges that we could have, and I am pleased that we have managed to get there. The short answer to Mr Bibby's question is reserves is the difference. They are there for difficult circumstances and those are indeed what we find ourselves in financially at the present time. 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 in terms of the funding decisions that have been made. There is huge anger out there, there has been a petition launched, 13,000 people have signed it, we have had equity union outside. Members of his own party are very concerned about those cuts. The cabinet secretary mentioned that the finance secretary and deputy first ministers made a commitment that funding will be restored next year, but what is that worth when you have reneged on your promise this year over funding? Why should anyone in the culture sector believe that we are going to introduce it next year? I have given the assurance to Creative Scotland, the Creative Scotland board, that they have accepted my assurance and that they have been prepared to use the reserves. They have accepted my assurance, whether I can persuade Mr Bibby to accept mine or not is clearly a different question. It is absolutely my pledge that they will see their £6.6 million that they are now releasing from their reserves will be restored to them. I understand why that is important for the reasons that I gave earlier in the relationship to multi-annual year funding. That is something that we will go ahead next year. People have accepted your assurance in February, but it turned out to not be worth any money, literally any money. In terms of that commitment next year, that is a goal-plated commitment. There is no get-out caveats that you want to tell us about now. I want to say a bit for a bigger picture. We had a lengthy list of quotes that were out from Mr Bibby there. He did not quote any of the evidence that we heard about the cause of it, not being the Scottish Government, but being inflation, Brexit, huge increases in energy costs, all of which were itemised. There are also quite a number of positive comments, including the fact that, surprisingly to me, in Scotland, some of the sector has higher wage levels than they do even in London, just for context. One thing that I find a bit murky is a very different tenor of evidence that we are hearing today from that that we heard last week. Crucially, in relation to the issue of reserves, which is central to a lot of this, I asked Creative Scotland if a single penny of those reserves had arrived in the Scottish Government, and it said, no. That seems to be at odds with what you said. Also, from what I am reading and the evidence that we have, the Scottish Government has continually topped up a reducing level of funding from the national lottery. For clarity, is it your view that the reserves, which are quite logistically being used in this situation, have been contributed to by the Scottish Government or not? It is undoubtedly the case that the funding that has been given to Creative Scotland in relation to the reducing level of national lottery payments has assisted them in being able to accrue reserves, which I think have total, most recently, £17 million. Clearly, that is important to them, and I acknowledge that. Mr Brown is absolutely right to say that the commitment of the Scottish Government to bridge the funding gap was for three years, and we have maintained that for five years. Notwithstanding that, I think that for the reasons that we have already explored a bit in terms of the importance of multi-annual year funding and the changes, the positive impact that that will have on the culture sector is what they want. It is what the Scottish Government wants, but it is a huge transition programme from Creative Scotland, which does that on behalf of the administration of the culture sector in Scotland. They need to know that they have the resources in place when that process kicks in. As I have said a number of times from a number of different angles, they are going to have the funding that they expect to have in place, that they require to have in place so that they are able to do that. That is a separate issue to the global culture budgets of the Scottish Government. As I have already said, that is something that I will be approaching with my colleagues in Government to make sure that we have the best possible settlement. However, the fact that Creative Scotland has been able to build up reserves, of course, is reflected in the fact that it has received funding from the Scottish Government, frankly, in addition and above the monies that have been lost from a reducing amount from the national lottery. If we accept, as some of us do, that we have had 13 years of austerity and reducing budgets, the Scottish Government has got a largely fixed budget, a portion to it, depending on what happens elsewhere in the UK. You can see why 13 years is starting to really have an effect. One of the things that we heard from the organisations last week was the increase in costs set aside relatively standstill budgets. In addition to giving the assurance that you have given that nobody will receive a cut, which is really important to get that message out, will you continue to keep your eyes open and your efforts focused on anything further that can be done to help individual actors within the sector to deal with those extraordinary pressures, which are currently facing not least in relation to energy costs, although the other issue that we were hearing about was talent loss, especially going down to London? Mr Brown is absolutely right to bring up the fact that the pressures that are being borne by the Scottish Government in terms of the Scottish Government's constrained income and constrained ability to do anything about that is matched by the constraints that are being felt in the culture sector. Yes, inflation in general, but as I'm sure many would have told you, that there are parts of the culture sector where inflation is significantly higher than inflation more generally. The impact of higher heating costs and the list goes on and on for different cultural organisations means that there is a double whammy. The ability of Government to do everything that it would like to do being constrained and the ability of the culture sector, cultural organisations, venues and everything else themselves with a significantly constrained budget, and not forgetting—we haven't even mentioned it yet—the impact that Covid has had on their finances, but also on societal attitudes towards going out, attending major events and so on. These massive shocks that the Scottish Government fully acknowledges. Given all of that, not only are we trying to do everything to make sure that the funding is in place, given all of that extremity, but it's also where one can intervene with organisations and some of those are in the public realm. A great number of them are not. It's absolutely essential that we help as many organisations, venues, festivals and so on not only to keep their head above water but to thrive as we recover from Covid. We also need to acknowledge that there are changes in the way that people are enjoying cultural offering. There are differences in the way that events are planned and funded and undertaken. We need to work with everybody in the culture and arts community in this period of change and, obviously, uncertainty as well. We need to give as much assurance as we possibly can, which is why it's really important that, when there is going to be no detrimental impact on our major arts funding body because it has reserves to use, it's important that people hear that and that we don't add to the wider concerns that people rightly have and that we need to deal with. The creative sector has always been resilient. I think that we have all acknowledged that. You said in your opening statement that there was frustration with this process. I would suggest that that is probably enragment at the least. Creative Scotland, like many organisations, has reserves and they are therefore potentially a rainy day. It's very much a rainy day today for them. The reserves have saved the day for many of those organisations. You have acknowledged that and you indicate that there will be no detrimental impact. Many of those organisations that we have heard evidence of in the past few weeks have said that they are still struggling to manage. They have talked about a perfect storm that has been discussed many times in the past. There is real fear and anxiety that the sector is on the brink. The deeds and actions of the Scottish Government have not helped in that process over the past few weeks with anxiety and difficulty. We wouldn't have had the demonstrations, the petitions, etc. if they believed that everything in the garden was reasonably going in the right direction. That is not the case. They believe that they are under attack, they are under threat and they are fighting for their survival. I have asked questions over the past few weeks about the strategies, the working groups and the action plans that the Scottish Government put together. Those plans all seem to show that there is a desire to attract, to support, to be involved, but the deeds that we see do not seem to marry up to that. That is where there is the frustration Cabinet Secretary with the sector. The sector needs that reassurance, and at the moment they do not have that reassurance. Someone said at the demonstration week that it was a mistake. Did you make a mistake by not putting the money back because they could not believe that they would be at this stage? I am not sure whether he brought up by way of reassurance when he met those people outside the Scottish Parliament the avowed commitments of Crater Scotland and its reserves. I do not know whether he took the opportunity to give people reassurance about the fact that there would be no detriment in the public realm at that stage. I think that it is really important that when we are in receipt of the facts, that all of us make sure that we are using those to make sure that where there are concerns, which are less well-founded, we can assuage those concerns. I think that we have been able to do that today in relation to Crater Scotland, its funding and its use of reserves. In terms of the wider anxieties and concerns, I totally acknowledge those. Mr Stewart has definitely given me some food for thought about how we are able to report the very considerable efforts of our organisations, whether they are Creative Scotland, whether they are Screen Scotland and others, who have been working tirelessly with organisations that are suffering distress, because I certainly would not want any impression to be created that there is a lack of intervention, a lack of concern, a lack of impact from our agencies in assisting. I would want to put on record, convener, my appreciation to everybody who has been involved in that. Maybe it is the nature of that, because we are often talking about commercial organisations that have been getting into difficult situations. Not everybody wants that kind of information to be in the public space, but I can give him the absolute assurance that there have been game-changing interventions on a regular basis, because Scottish Government-funded public organisations are assisting the cultural sector to get through these difficult times. However, where it is possible for us—he mentions culture strategy and so on and updated versions—to give some case studies, insight, understanding of the assistance that has been provided to help venues, organisations and indeed individual artists continue to work in the sector. There is a challenge, and that was certainly the case during Covid. For some, it remains of people making decisions about whether they want to remain active or can remain active in the culture and creative sector. We need to do everything that we can to give people the best support so that they are able to do that. However, he definitely leaves a thought with me, which I will take away and happily share and update the committee on about how we can help to inform you all about the interventions that are making profound impacts. I think that that would be beneficial. You had Ian Monroe, you had Isabel Davies here, and no doubt they will be back. I am sure that they would be happy to provide you with the information that they can because it is they who are doing the heavy lifting and all of this, and I am very appreciative for it. Because you identify, cabinet secretary, that the sector is, as I say, managing and progressing, and there have been interventions already. However, there was real fear and anxiety from some of the individuals that we have heard from in evidence that things could not remain the same. The culture sector needs to adapt. It has adapted. I have talked about the resilience that we have already got. However, there could well be casualties, and they have indicated that casualties are taking place in some areas and in some communities. It is how to balance that, cabinet secretary, to ensure that we have a phenomenal sector that is world-leading and that is punched above its weight. That is all of that. We have heard that time and time again. However, without the stability that the Government can give, it can find financing from other sectors or support mechanism sponsorship. However, the stability that the Government can give is vitally important. Do you have to acknowledge at the moment that that confidence from Government has been dented by the recent events that have taken place? I completely agree with Mr Stewart in as much as things cannot remain the same because things around us are changing. We need to react to those changes and we need to make sure that our cultural organisations and our cultural funding organisations are best placed to be able to deal with that changing circumstance. However, I am sure that Mr Stewart would not want to create the impression that changes are not taking place in terms of cultural organisations or indeed their funding. We have had some discussion this morning about multi-annual funding, which is a demand from the sector and is supported from the Scottish Government and is being introduced by Creative Scotland. That in itself will lead to a wider set of questions of those that are not part of the multi-annual funding system and how they have the stability that they want. I suppose that what I am trying to say is that change is the only constant in all of this and we have to make sure that we find the best way through that. I suppose that I am gently trying to make the point that it is really important that, given the anxiety that there is out there, where certainty of funding and finance is assured that we need to do everything that we can to help people to understand that that is indeed the case. In terms of the evidence that I have been able to provide to the committee this morning about the particular funding challenges, the issue of major events, which we have been able to secure progress on. That is something that we are going to have to return to in terms of finding the right funding mechanism across Government because Scotland has a really excellent reputation. Since Europe was right to talk about Scotland being world leading and one of those areas where we are world leading is in major events, as we saw with the Cycling World Championships. However, we have other events coming up, including major football events. We are going to need to make sure that that funding mechanism across Government is in place. The fact that Creative Scotland is assured of its funding situation through the use of reserves should and the regularly funded organisations are being informed that they are getting the support that they were expecting to get, so there is no detriment there. In terms of the wider non-contracted spend, we are now in a significantly better place of being able to make sure that the stability that Mr Stewart has quite rightly underlined is so important to the sector is one that we are going to be able to provide. Lastly, following on from that, there is talk about stability. Ring ffencing has been discussed in a number of occasions by a number of organisations as to what would help protect or would help enhance. What are your views about that? In general, as we know with ring ffencing, one person's ring ffencing is another person's instruction of others who should be able to make decisions to make decisions. We hear that in local government a lot, don't we? There is a pendulum effect of where public opinion is in that. To an extent, there is budgetary ring ffencing already, because if one looks at the different budget lines within the portfolio, there are different ways in which, for example, festivals are supported. I have always been open-minded to good ideas, so whether that is from the culture sector, whether that is to the committee as a committee whose reports are excellent, and I say that not just because I am appearing before the committee, but I say especially to colleagues from other political parties, if there are genuine suggestions about how things could better be organised, I appeal for people's input on those things and I appreciate—I have to sit here in the hot chair and answer for what we are doing in government and I appreciate opposition colleagues need to do what they do in between. There is no monopoly in common sense with things. If there are different funding approaches, one of the things that I am very interested in is what is it that we can learn from other jurisdictions? What is it that we can learn from other countries about how they fund the creative and art sector? We have already brought up in the past, convener, the likes of the percentage for the arts, which is a potential funding stream, a new funding stream. We must acknowledge the tremendous benefit that is derived from philanthropy, so I was at the opening event for the national galleries last week, which was significantly supported by Scottish Government funding, which is absolutely world-class. I would encourage all colleagues if they have not yet been there to go, but what struck me at the event was the opening event where a lot of the key supporters of the project were there, where people that one wouldn't know because they don't advertise it are incredibly generous towards, in this case, the national gallery, but you could say the V&A Dundee, you could say Celtic connections, you could say any number of things. Frankly, there is much more that needs to be done in the philanthropy space, not just to work with people who are so generous, but frankly to say thank you because we need to work in partnership to make sure that we are providing the maximum resource, and we need to be aware that there is significant financial support that comes to cultural organisations and venues in Scotland not from here. Amongst others, there are people from the Scottish diaspora who contribute really generously. I think that there is more that we can do in that space, and if Mr Stewart has new ideas about how we can be doing that, I would be delighted to work with him on those. I don't need to tell him how fragile the culture sector is in Scotland for lots of reasons. Last year, the committee's report described what was then a perfect storm, I think, with the words that we used. Since then, particularly in the last month, the evidence that this committee has heard has been very stark indeed and almost universal in its description of the anxiety that this sector feels. One person who gave evidence to us was Liam Sinclair of the Federation of Scottish Theatre. He said that, and I am going to read it at length. I apologise for that. He said that, in material issues, since the last time the committee took evidence ahead of the budget, relates to the journey through the Parliament that the Scottish Government took the culture budget on last year. It would be difficult to overstate the erosion of faith and trust among our members that resulted from that journey. The culture budget was cut, albeit that funding was reinstated, which left people feeling less clear than they should have been about the vision under which we are all operating for the delivery of cultural services in Scotland. That evidence was given before the events of last week. Can you understand that people rightly view this as a promise being made and then a promise being broken? Can you understand the irreparable damage that is done to trust in the Scottish Government by that decision before we even get to the financial impact? The key reflection that I would make to Mr Cameron's observations is to use his own expression. That evidence was given before the assurances by Ian Monroe of Creative Scotland around the use of reserves. It was given before the assurances have been given to regularly funded organisations. It is evidence that has been given before this session where the clarity on Creative Scotland's zero detriment in relation to its funding has been given repeatedly. I view that separately from the very particular concerns that there are in relation to venues—theatres are being a big part of them—on the significant challenges that they are facing. I know that Creative Scotland is working with venues and theatres to make sure that we are able to do everything that we are able to do to make sure that they are able to continue operating and going into the future. There are some aspects of this that are not within the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I worked very hard with the theatre sector in relation to the UK treasury and tax reliefs for venues. We were able to be successful in increasing the timescale and the operation of tax exemptions for venues, including theatres. I know that to be materially important to venues' abilities to continue trading. We will have to be very alive to that, but all the other pressures are well. I look forward to continuing to work with the theatre sector. The key point in Mr Cameron's question was evidence before. Now that the evidence has been given, it is important that we reflect on the assurances that have been given by Creative Scotland and the self-evident fact that there is no detriment to Creative Scotland's ability to fund the regularly funded organisations and that they will receive the funding that they expect in the next weeks. Thank you for that answer. With the greatest respect, I do not think that people will be reassured following this session and, indeed, the last week. I think that people will not believe that there is, quote, no detriment. That is certainly not the picture that is happening out there. Can I ask about reserves? We are talking here about not 10 per cent of Creative Scotland's reserves. We are talking about almost 40 per cent. It is a huge proportion of their reserves being used. What I do not understand is that, in February 2023, when John Swinney made his commitment to reinstate £6.6 million to Creative Scotland, he said that that was precisely so that it did not have to replace grant funding. He said, and I will quote him, that I will provide an uplift of £6.6 million for Creative Scotland for 2023-24 to ensure that their reserve funding can supplement rather than replace grant funding. A mere seven months later, that position has been abandoned, and perhaps the Cabinet Secretary can explain why. I am sure that the convener would not wish me to repeat, although, if Mr Cameron wants me to, I would be delighted to repeat the evidence that I gave in my opening statement about the change financial circumstances, about the additional pressures on the budget. He was here, he heard that. If he needs to hear it again, I would be happy to share that with the committee. To the start of his question, he asserted that organisations will not be assured. Is he saying that the regularly funded organisations will not be assured when they receive their funding? That would surprise me. Creative Scotland is informing their regularly funded organisations who will be able to receive their funding within the next weeks, and that they will indeed receive their funding as planned. I imagine that they are significantly assured, even if Mr Cameron is not. In relation to the difference between the start of the year and the end of the year, that should be obvious to any fair-minded person. I would appeal to people's fair-mindedness in understanding the extreme financial pressures that there are, but also to appreciate that, given that we are at the end of the year, we are getting closer to the beginning and the introduction of the multi-annual year funding of the regularly funded organisations. Creative Scotland is for them to explain their funding mechanisms, and no doubt you will have them back here to give evidence. We will have been beginning to need to draw down their reserves to spend on their multi-annual funding of organisations one way or the other. The commitment has been given that they will be provided with that funding in the normal way next year. There is no detriment in relation to the reserves and funding that is available for them in managing the transition to regularly funded organisations. Can I ask about Scotland's international reputation? You have already given evidence this morning about Scotland being world leading. Last week, the committee heard about the damage that the Scottish Government's funding decisions are doing to our international reputation. We have heard about organisations that cannot tour due to a lack of funding and Scotland being outstripped by touring groups from other countries. Francesca Heggy of the Edinburgh International Festival told the committee that a number of European festivals were so concerned by the distress caused by the financial position that they offered to put together—I think that she described it as an aid package for the Edinburgh International Festival this year. Do you accept that our reputation has been damaged? The first thing is that I accept that Scotland has an extremely high international reputation when it comes to culture. I would not want to contribute in any way to undermining that. I think that if we look at the success of the festivals this year and they have been extremely successful, it would not be right to create an impression that they have not been the success that they have been. I would just observe again only last week sitting in a room with a sizable international attendance, all of which were praising Scotland's cultural sector. In this context, it was fine art in the national galleries. In terms of international funding comparisons, is there more that we can be doing in Scotland? Absolutely. That is why we are developing an international culture strategy to make sure that we are working together. That includes our regularly funded organisations, our major festivals, cultural organisations that have international outreach. Some of those are supported and funded by the Scottish Government, and some of them are not. Some are funded to a greater extent and some are funded to a lesser extent. We need to make sure that we are doing everything that we can in terms of Scotland's international reach. I know that there is significant ambition in relation to touring. I accept that. The touring of different orchestras or theatre companies, which is extremely successful, is one that I look forward to continuing. It is really important that, although we acknowledge the pressures that different organisations, including festivals, are under—I will be meeting with the Edinburgh Festival shortly to discuss this—we do not inadvertently find ourselves in a situation in which we are undermining that reputation internationally. There is a balance to be struck. More general questions. You outlined quite healthily at the beginning that, at the end of the day, if one budget line in the Scottish Government goes up, then another line has to equally fall. It is just the basic facts of maths. We hear lots of calls, generally, all of us sitting in the chamber for increased funding on things like the NHS and local government, all of which are legitimate. When was the last time someone came to you and said, here is an idea for increasing the budget line for culture, take it from here? I can say with 100 per cent certainty that I have not received any communication from any other Parliamentarian or party suggesting that. I have heard calls for this to happen and that to happen, more this, more that. I have had zero suggestions about where funding would be found from elsewhere to deal with funding pressures elsewhere. Of course, one of the other opportunities is quite clearly that the bulk of our budget is still set by grant and fixed, but we are all very aware of some of the economic challenges, inflation and energy costs. Our economy is not growing at the pace and speed that we would like it to. I was struck by Creative Scotland's written evidence about the huge economic driver that culture is. From memory, I think that the cultural contribution of GVA has increased by 62 per cent since 2010. Actually, its staff workforce has increased by 9 per cent, which tells its own story in terms of an economic driver. What do you see in the coming years could be done in terms of continuing to support the culture sector and make that massive contribution? How do we ensure that it is as widely recognised as possible? There is a lot in that. The first thing is that acknowledging the scale of the economic benefit of the culture sector is hugely significant. We need to do everything that we can to make sure that that success continues. Yes, that is about the Government providing the funding that it is able to do, but it is also about creating the circumstances in which it can thrive in its own terms and be sustainable and making sure that there are parallel funding streams as well. One of the areas that I am most optimistic about is that it is new in terms of benefit to the wider economy in terms of its significance in relation to the screen sector. We have gone from a position where festivals, for example, have been successful since their inception. As we know in Edinburgh's case, you are talking about going back to the late 1940s. What is new is that beyond having a very small scale, comparatively speaking, screen sector, occasional filmmaking and work at BBC, STV, now an increasing amount with Channel 4 and others, we are seeing a burgeoning of the wider screen sector. We have gone from not having a single large-scale studio with appeals for famous Scottish actors to open them up in the 1980s and 90s and it not happening to us now having studios right across the country and there are more to come. We have got to a situation and a trajectory and this has been borne out by the report that was published by Screen Scotland. Screen, I think that I am right in saying from memory, its value is nearly £650 million gva with a trajectory to be worth over £1 billion by 2030. That has a massive positive impact on our economy. We want to do everything that we can to support that. We want to make sure that that is something that brings benefit everywhere in Scotland and we need to embrace the opportunity that that will give for a new generation of people to find employment in those sectors. Those are sectors where we exported our talent and we did not have the financial benefit of them being here. Whether it is the established and successful parts of the cultural economy or if it is newer bits of the wider sector, we need to acknowledge their value. We need to do everything that we can to support them. That is a really good example where, compared to the level of value, the intervention through Scottish Government funding via Screen Scotland, on the likes of its production growth fund, is minuscule in comparison with the wider value that is accru to the Scottish economy. The challenge is to make sure that we are providing funds in a way that helps sustainability, helps growth, helps new starts and, at the same time, is what is required for more established events, including festivals at a time of change. That is exactly the kind of thing that I am interested in discussing with colleagues in the festivals sector to make sure that things are as successful as they can be. I feel free to comment on the question, but it is also a bulwark against depopulation, because organisations such as MG Allopah, for example, being situated outside the central belt and not even on the mainland, at a time of growth, are attracting huge numbers of people to the islands who might not have otherwise lived in the islands. I put that on the record, because it is not just about that stark national growth, it is also about the disproportionate impact on our islands. Two things to that. One, a wider cultural, but also linguistic point, which is that I am well aware of the fragile nature of Scotland's gallic-speaking communities. The importance of one's own community being reflected in one's own language. That is where whether it is in terms of television or radio, but wider arts as well, that we have support that helps to provide television and radio provision in the Gallic language and does have an impact on different communities where there are BBC studios in Inverness, in Stornoway and elsewhere. I draw people's attention to other organisations that are really important in that respect. We should acknowledge that some of that is difficult to capture in metrics, nor should it necessarily be so. I was at an event last year celebrating two years of success for the culture collective, and I do not know if you have ever taken evidence from them, who are supported through Creative Scotland, who are funded through the Scottish Government, who provide hugely important funding for freelance creatives to practice their art in communities right across Scotland when one walked into the reception last night at the Storytelling Centre in the Festival of the Map of Scotland with a little dot where all of those people were from, and it was right across Scotland. The testimonial evidence of what they have been able to do, the impact that they have been able to have, and we have already talked a little bit about health and wellbeing and other things that are really important for better governance and living in a better society. To my mind, what they do is absolutely mission critical in us making the interventions that we want to. In addition to them just being able to practice their arts in their communities, there was one person who spoke about being the only person that he knew working in culture in the community that he lived in, which reflects that in some parts of the country that is a less than optimal situation for them to find them. The good news is that we now have two years of experience of funding people to be able to operate as creative freelancers right across Scotland, so there's a lot of good stuff that is happening, there's more that can be done with that, and it gives me an opportunity to congratulate the culture collective in front of the committee for the wonderful work that they've done, but I think that there's much in the challenge of depopulation that we need to think about, that we ensure that our cultural institutions right across Scotland continue to be supportive, and if there are other ways in which we should be doing more of that, particularly within our different linguistic communities, that's something that I'm very keen to be supportive of. Thank you. I echo your comments about the culture collective. There are clear contributors to our report on culture and communities, and I fully support what you've said about them, cabinet secretary. Can I bring in Mr Ryskell, please? Yeah, thanks. I mean, your portfolio budget is minuscule, really, compared to many other portfolios. I mean, it's several orders of magnitude smaller than health, and I'm just thinking about, you know, the challenges that that perhaps poses, particularly when you have major events, which is a big multimillion pound budget international stage, sitting alongside culture, which is primarily about funding these incredible organisations that exist within our communities and all the benefits that that delivers. I mean, it feels like there's a tension there in terms of funding, and I think what you've announced today suggests quite a major shift in thinking within the government about how major national events are funded. Can you explore that a little bit more? It feels that this is partly about lessons from UCI, which I agree was a fantastic success, but I'm wondering if there are other contexts to this as well. So there are a number of key facts in Mr Ryskell's question. The size of the portfolio budget relative to the rest of government, but also certain responsibilities within the portfolio that have wider government benefit. So he's right to say that major events is one of them. The census is another, which falls, of course, every 10 years, but there is a significant risk of financial displacement within a small portfolio if one has major responsibilities but not necessarily specific funding. Now, there has been in the past intervention for particular support for the likes of the census, and I think that this is a really good example of Scottish Government recognition of the cross-government benefits that major events can bring. There will be wider discussions about how that is approached in future as well, because one of the side effects of Scotland becoming as successful as it has been in recent years with major events necessitates us thinking about how we do all of that, and I don't think anybody wants to see there being a displacement effect within the wider portfolio, which includes, of course, culture but also includes external affairs. So our ability, going back to Mr Cameron's point, of being able to project, amongst other things, our cultural offering in the rest of the world. So it's really important that we maintain all of these different areas of the portfolio's work to do what we are trying to do to promote Scotland domestically and internationally. So yes, no doubt there are going to be conversations about how do we make sure that we have that cross-government approach to major events, but there's also an acknowledgement that one of the benefits of major events working hand in hand with the culture director in the Scottish Government is that we have a lot of people in the civil service working in culture who are extremely talented in the organisation of events, whether those are cultural events or whether those are wider events that are hosted in Scotland. So there are reasons why major events work closely together with culture. I think the question going forward is whether the funding model is fit for the place that we now find ourselves in, having had the good experience that we've had of major events, which is essentially since 2014 in the Commonwealth Games. We've seen these really large world-class events and we have the aspiration to do more, so we need to make sure that we've got the right mechanisms, funding is a part of that, to make sure that we're able to do that. What do you see the role of the UK Government in funding those major events? I think we've discussed this previously that despite UCI being a major success, there was really no funding from the UK Government for what was ostensibly still a GB event. Do you see a way of working with the UK Government that could bring in more partnership funding from that side of other events that are still to come? I'm always open to working with authorities first of Scotland, and there was in the case of Cycling UK, a wider UK organisation with whom we worked closely and very well in helping to deliver an event where it was a GB team performing at an event in Scotland funded through the Scottish Government. We have to work our way through sometimes Scotland. Scotland competes internationally as an independent country, and in some it's in a wider GB or UK context. There will always be a discussion with UK authorities and UK Government partners about how we can do all that. One thing I would say, however, that is as yet unresolved with this, and this is something that we debated in the chamber the other day, is that if there is to be funding that is to be provided in areas where the devolved oversight for those is in this place, I think that there is as an yet a resolved issue of the ability of parliamentarians to scrutinise how all of that works. You will have me in and I can't remember, convener, how many times it is now to give evidence and I will happily continue to do that. It is now par for the course that UK Government ministers refuse to give evidence to this parliament, even though they are becoming ever more involved in devolved areas and not always in benign ways, but where we can be working together and take for example the home nations approach to the forthcoming footballing events. That is somewhere where we will be working with other Governments in the UK and the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the footballing authorities. As we have shown with other events, we are more than capable of doing that and we want to do that in the future. I think that I was conscious of time as we were on our agenda item to get through this morning, but I suspect that the final question plays from Mr Bebe. You have cited a number of times inflation has been the reason behind the decision to cut the £6.6 million. Obviously, there are huge pressures in terms of the cost of living and inflationary pressures, which affect Government ball, so 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, that has fallen to 6.7 per cent. That is far too high. I want to be clear that that remains far too high. If inflationary reasons 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 that promise? Or was it a promise that deep down you knew you could not keep? Frankly, I am unnecessarily pointed questions from Mr Bebe who heard me give because he has been in since the beginning of the session, who heard me not only draw attention to the inflation rate, but mission critically in the context of having a serious approach to funding culture and appreciation of the additional pressure on the Scottish budget because of pay settlements. I updated the committee on the fact that that has seen an additional £785 million, so a significant amount of money, bringing additional pressure on the Scottish Government budget. In reference to the question that was asked by Kate Forbes in all of this, given the displacement impact that additional cost over it—I am not talking about inflation—the fact that that means that you can buy less, it is the additionality of the likes of pay claims, which squeezes the Government's budget, means that that displaces the ability to do everything that we would want. It is really, really, really basic public administration and finance the point that I am making here. Unless somebody is wanting to be serious about explaining about how one deals with that pressure, so where is one going to find money from elsewhere, is one able to then broach the pressures, deal with the pressures that one is having to face? It seems to me eminently sensible that if one has the ability to use reserves to then not actually cut, so end funding for organisations, that is the best course of action. If Mr Bibby would prefer us to cut cultural budget lines in areas where there is no reserves, he has to explain how one is going to do it, and I have not heard that from anybody thus far. So it seems to me that in the circumstances that we find ourselves for reasons that, again, any fair-minded person would acknowledge are significant on our really extreme, that given those pressures, where there are reserves that can deal with a situation in extremis and can then be recompensed to make sure that on-going financial and planning purposes can be fulfilled, that is the prudent, sensible and sustainable kind of decisions that we are making, because if not, one is then talking about ending financial support for cultural organisations, which I am not prepared to do. I am aware of the pressures. I am quite as you were aware of the pressures in February. I was not aware of 785—sorry, let me get the number right. I don't know if Mr Bibby was aware of 785 million pounds additional, because I wasn't. It's something that's happened since the time that he's referred to. Again, I make my point about fair-mindedness. If there is an acknowledgement that that is an additional and new pressure, nobody had a crystal ball about the extent to which funding settlements would be pursued. I draw attention to colleagues that they have not all been resolved, so there is the potential for additional pressures above and beyond budgeted measures. Given that, one has to make decisions on the basis of the facts as we find them now towards the end of the year, and now that we are at the end of the financial year, I and my colleagues are doing everything that we can to make sure that there is not a cut to Creative Scotland's ability to fund regularly funded organisations. As we have now heard repeatedly in this committee, as in fact this committee heard last week from Ian Munro himself, there will not be detriment to the regularly funded organisations through Creative Scotland's budgetary processes. Beyond that, the uncontracted spend right across the culture sector, which otherwise would have to have faced massive cuts, are now not. Mr Brown has indicated that a very small supplementary, if I can be taken in two minutes, Mr Brown? We will only require a yes or no answer if the cabinet secretary is able to do that. Just to say, I think that you and I convener are the ones on this committee that have been here longest, and in the 16 years that I have been here, I have never heard a proposal from an opposition party to increase the culture budget just to go in the record with that. However, I asked a number of the contributors last week if they could provide any evidence of comparative devolved areas and how they work, because we are pretty bound to look at other areas in which we could increase the budget. If they could give any evidence of comparative, and the ones that were provided, first of all, Canada, Korea and then subsequent to Quebec and Catalonia, they are not really comparable. If the Government has any information on how other devolved areas are akin to Scotland as much as possible, it would be useful if the Government could provide that information to the committee if they wanted to see them. I think that we will look, but I do not think that we will find. I mean, the big difference between all of the places that Mr Brown outlines to this committee and their financial ability to raise income in a way that the Scottish Government is not. I have heard claims in the last couple of days about Scotland having the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, which is frankly not true. If we look at a number of the places that Mr Brown has mentioned already, they have significant powers beyond Scotland to be able to secure the financial means to do with situations in a time of extremism. Scotland is extremely constrained in our budgetary powers and our ability to find additional monies in times of financial distress, and that is why, in this context, it is mission critical to understand that where we have reserves in the public purse, so to speak, that if and when we reach a rainy day where we really need the funds to be able to get ourselves through difficult times that we are able to use them, that is exactly what we have done. We have done it in a way that will not provide detriment to, in this case, Creative Scotland. That is a good thing. There is a wider issue going forward, and you will have me back, no doubt, for further evidence sessions about the budget in future years, and I will be delighted to hear both from MSPs of governing parties but also from Opposition parties if there are serious proposals to increase, in this case, the culture budget and from where the money will come. I have not heard that once in my time as culture secretary. That note, we have to draw the session to a close. I thank the cabinet secretary and Ms Cooper for attending the committee this morning. We are now going to private sessions for a further agenda item.