That is right. That leads on to a wider point that I would like to make on what could be done or thought of differently.
It absolutely needs to be recognised that arts funding is not just about funding the arts. What we get back for that funding is much more significant, and one of the most important factors is the economic impact. Cultural tourism—specifically that based on contemporary visual art and music—is a key driver in Glasgow’s economic planning for the next few years. Glasgow is a UNESCO city of music and, some would say, the unofficial European capital of live music. The suggestion that people come to the city because of its cultural scene—and, in large part, its music scene—seems to hold true, and that could be developed further. That is also an official part of the city’s tourism and economic development plan.
Seeing the arts, music and other aspects of culture in their most diverse and vibrant forms as factors that play a huge part in other outcomes is another idea that could be thought of differently, to everyone’s benefit. Tourism and the direct effect on the economy is certainly one issue; other issues are health and wellbeing, quality of life in older age, attainment in young people, educational benefits, and overcoming disadvantages that some of our young people—and people at all life stages—face.
There is an increasingly strong body of evidence that shows the benefits of participating in or being in the audience for art forms. Those benefits can range from increasing language learning, emotional regulation and other types of learning in primary-school-age young people to proven benefits in the reduction of anxiety and the need for medication for people who experience dementia in later life, depression or dependence recovery. Significant reports point out such benefits.
In 2017, the all-party parliamentary group on arts, health and wellbeing published its review of the benefits of culture and art forms for prescription and so on. That is quite a good summary of the state of the current evidence.
In the past month, we have seen a powerful study that analysed 10 years’ worth of data on museum visits. The simple benefits to people of getting out of the house and going and doing something or interacting with some people were controlled for, and it was found that cultural engagement specifically had additional benefits over and above those simple factors. The study covered all forms of cultural engagement, but it centred on museum data. I found it fascinating that the only case for which its finding was not true was cinema. The working theory for that seems to be that screen-based, passive forms of cultural engagement are not as effective as any live form.
I do not know whether such a shift is possible but, across the country, and in each city in it, arts, culture and cultural engagement in its various forms could be seen as a huge part of the answer to the health and social issues that citizens face, which most people want to address. Obviously, Glasgow has some challenges in that area. Thinking of funding for that in the same way as—or in a similar or a related way to—how we think of education or health funding has a great deal of merit, and Glasgow Life is actively exploring that.