Chamber and committees

That is a very important point that was well put.

Thank you very much.

You are anticipating my supplementary question.

Okay—where do I begin? I would happily offer a list of the reasons why I think that Scotland has got it wrong, but I will perhaps save that for the debate this afternoon on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, which is, finally, an acknowledgement that we are years behind where we are supposed to be on reducing domestic emissions.

I was going to start on this theme, but it has been covered to a certain extent, so I will not go into it in much detail. Bridget Burns said that nothing about the transition is easy. To go back to when Scotland first bought credibility, domestically and internationally, at COP15 in 2009, that was done easily—it was done simply by setting targets. Agreeing the destination, without agreeing the steps that were needed to get there, was the easy bit.

Mr Wilson is probably right to say that it is a little too early to ask for honest self-reflection from the Government, because if it were to offer that now, I think that it would just say, “Parliament set too high a target and we didn’t get anything wrong.” Next year’s COP is probably the time when the Government will have to show that it has a new climate plan, after the bill that is currently before Parliament is passed, and try to demonstrate some credibility.

I want to link that to the issue of climate finance more broadly, specifically in relation to Scotland’s track record in financing the energy sector. Scotland has been a fossil fuel producer for a long time, and it hosts not only the companies that continue to extract fossil fuels but the companies that finance that activity. Despite a very clear signal from the United Nations and other agencies that new investment in fossil fuels cannot be justified, that is still happening.

What role and responsibilities can a country such as Scotland, with both the energy and the finance parts of that industry still operating, undertake in a soft-power sense? I am thinking of something a little bit like those early actions of setting targets and showing that we can earn credibility as a non-state party by doing so, or the early work on both the language and money behind the idea of climate justice and loss and damage. What can we do in that space to say that the fossil fuel finance industry is what needs to be challenged and changed if we are to have a global economy that finances climate action and does it justly?

There is a great deal in the picture that you are painting that the committee and the sector would welcome—increased resource, long-term certainty and a review of the remit and operations of Creative Scotland. I think that that is welcome. I hope that I am right in hearing from you that you understand that it will take time for the sector to rebuild trust, given the turbulence and the stop-start nature of funding, particularly very recently. It will take time and the delivery of those commitments for that trust and confidence to build, if the Government does commit to that.

There has been some discussion in our evidence taking about the short-term, immediate step—in the coming financial year—towards that £100 million commitment. One witness said to us, if the figure for the coming financial year

“is £20 million, it will not touch the sides”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 19 September 2024; c 12.]

I appreciate that you will not be in a position to give us a figure right now, but do you hear and recognise the evidence that has been given to the committee that clearly indicates that it will have to be significantly more than that, just to be taken seriously?

Thank you.

That is by 2028; I am asking about the coming year.

Thank you for that extensive answer. If there is time later, I may ask a follow-up question on that subject.

Further to the last point that you made, I note that there is also a need for alignment with the timescales that are relevant to individuals and organisations, including small organisations and freelancers. If the disbursement of funding leaves them facing a crunch moment in relation to how their finances work, they can end up not getting the benefit from it.

I want to talk about the relationship with the review, because there is a huge opportunity from the review but there is a danger of a chicken-and-egg or cart-before-horse situation—I am not sure which metaphor is right here—with regard to the relationship between funding and the review of Creative Scotland’s remit and operations.

Let me give you one example of the potential negative consequences that some people may be worried about. Creative Scotland has had some criticism for some of what it has done. An area that is pretty well regarded, as far as I can tell, is Screen Scotland, which is doing pretty well. My view is that the games sector would benefit from a similar high-profile approach, with a similarly high-profile unit within Creative Scotland to look at the games sector, which has sometimes fallen between the creative and enterprise parts of Government.

I know that the Government is serious about the games sector’s potential and has talked about developing a games strategy. However, if the review of Creative Scotland said that, among other things, it should have a more high-profile and well-resourced games unit, is there a risk that the rest of the culture sector would say, “Hang on, we thought that extra £100 million was all for us?” Is there a danger that, in looking at the remit, we end up not seeing all that additional committed money going to what we currently cover in the creative sector but the movement of pots of money within Government?

That is two questions in one: one is about the games sector and the potential for Creative Scotland to do some really good stuff, which I would like to see happen; the other is about the impact on the existing funding streams and the people who benefit from those, if Creative Scotland were to take on something new within that funding of £100 million?

Not really.

My point is that, wherever the decision-making power lies, would the Government like to see it happen?