Chamber and committees

I am keen to build on a number of aspects of cross-portfolio working. As I have said in previous evidence to the committee, there are areas of the cultural space, in relation especially to health and wellbeing but also to the economy space, where there is the potential for us to do more.

I do not know whether the committee has heard from, for example, Scottish Ballet about what it has done, is doing and wants to do in the health and wellbeing space. I highly recommend that the committee hear about that work, because it is absolutely world class. Scottish Ballet is a really good example of a cultural institution in Scotland. It is a national performing company, so it is directly funded by the Scottish Government, and it is doing a lot in the health and wellbeing space, which is paid for out of the culture directorate’s finances.

At the same time, there are other areas in the cultural space, such as the screen sector, in which we can look at significant economic aspects. The committee has been well advised about the ambition for it to become a £1 billion GVA industry in Scotland by 2030, on which really good progress is being made. How does that marry with other parts of Government that have responsibilities? We are definitely doing more to ensure that we get the most out of opportunities. I could move on to tourism, for example, and there are other areas that are, to all intents and practical purposes, not part of my direct responsibility in Government. However, by ensuring that everything works together, we can do more.

Screen is another good example of an area in which we are required to do more. Screen Scotland has direct responsibility for television and film but not gaming, which sits in the economy space in the Scottish Government. Meanwhile, we have a national performing company—the Royal Scottish National Orchestra—that has a significant new source of income in the form of soundtracks for films and games. In painting that picture, I am making your point that cross-portfolio working is absolutely key. I have not even got to social prescribing, which is one of the committee’s previous particular interests and one that I have given evidence to the committee about.

I am cognisant of all the different areas in which culture has a lot to offer. Given that you are interested in the budget element today, I note that the key change that we are seeing at present—Creative Scotland’s multi-annual funding of twice as many organisations as before—is foundational for the delivery of cross-departmental benefits, which might have been harder to achieve in the past.

It was definitely the case that, when there was significant financial distress, especially as we emerged from Covid, there was concern in some parts of the country that certain local authorities might make decisions on the provision of some cultural services that raised the potential for funding to be diverted. The Scottish Government would take very seriously the prospect of the likes of Sistema Scotland or the Youth Music Initiative not being able to continue in one part of the country, because they are an important part of our commitment to helping children in more challenged social and economic circumstances to access music and cultural provision. I have been very alive to that possibility. I have been meeting the cultural lead and other representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities throughout my term in office, and meetings have been taking place more widely with the cultural leads of local authorities.

I am optimistic about learning more from the review of Creative Scotland, which has been looking into the availability of cultural services in different parts of the country, as it is not uniform and there is not a uniform approach. There is one issue around local government and another around the local enterprise companies—we have three in Scotland, and they take quite different approaches to culture. That is another layer of understanding: how are things working in different parts of the country?

We must then add the question of the extent to which Creative Scotland’s decision making is about what is funded and what that means in different parts of the country. Are there gaps? I would be keen to understand whether that is the case. I would say in mitigation that both the Culture Collective and Creative Communities funding streams, which are being provided throughout Scotland, offer important mechanisms to ensure that all parts of the country have the ability to draw down funds to support cultural activity.

Your question, convener, about ensuring that there is provision of cultural services is absolutely right, and there is a whole parallel discussion to be had about libraries, which fits into that context, too.

As the committee knows, I walk a fine line between wanting to ensure that we, as the Government, are doing everything that we can to support local government, the enterprise companies and Creative Scotland and respecting our arm’s length relationships—which exist for obvious reasons, as it is not for cabinet secretaries to micromanage what we might personally wish to have more of, whether on stage, on screen or wherever. I leave that to the experts.

Having said all of that, and referring back to the question that you posed, convener, I would say that there is a role for Government in using our convening power and the best possible information to ensure that we have cultural provision across Scotland that can by accessed by people of all backgrounds. In general, that is working well, and I am interested to learn, through the review, whether there any areas where we could be doing more.

I can see a very subtle hand movement from Lisa Baird, who may, I think, want to add something.

A few years ago, one would regularly read that there were concerns in some parts of the country that local facilities—whether museums, galleries or other facilities—might be closed, which might lead to a diminution of cultural provision, especially in more rural parts of the country that are away from major population centres. That caused me concern. That is why, where we have a locus in being able to help, support, buttress and develop the likes of museums, that is what we are doing.

Lisa Baird has already drawn attention to the fund that exists to help museums to future proof what they do and to think about what they might be able to do differently and better, and how they can maintain their numbers. We have amazing museums in different parts of the country. I was recently at a museum in Kirkcudbright that I had not been to before. I would encourage anybody with an interest in painting, in particular, to take a look round it. That is but one example of the need to have different ways of being able to support the cultural infrastructure in different parts of the country.

I did not hear Iain Munro’s evidence, but I know that Creative Scotland—now that it has been freed from the annual consideration of budget applications—is very interested in taking a more focused approach to helping to support the development of the management of cultural organisations, venues and so on, because, as we know, audiences are changing, as is how people make best use of the cultural offering. I have already drawn attention to what the Culture Collective and Creative Communities do. I think that we have a good mixture, but I am open to learning whatever lessons we can from the Creative Scotland review to find out whether there are gaps and, if there are, what interventions we might make.

Mr Halcro Johnston is a relatively new member of the committee, so I say to him—through the convener—and to others that, if there are examples in different parts of the country, do not assume that there is an omnipotent, all-seeing eye that understands the realities in all the various parts of the country. Please take the opportunity to share with us examples of what you think we should be doing more of or less of, or doing in a different way. I will be very content to take those examples away, because, as you know, my approach is to work in partnership with the committee. That is a good example of how we can work together.

That is understood. I have made it absolutely and unambiguously clear to the committee that I agree that there is a wide range of issues of concern relating to the senior management of Historic Environment Scotland. They cause me extreme concern, and I expect to learn what the consequences of those cases are. Some relate to matters that are subject to on-going internal human resource processes, and I await the conclusion of them. I also believe that those issues will be fully attended to by the incoming chair of Historic Environment Scotland, Sir Mark Jones. I have total confidence in his ability and willingness to deal with the issue. We all share an interest in the focus of Historic Environment Scotland’s efforts being on the tremendous job that it does throughout Scotland.

If this part of the evidence session is drawing to a close because we are moving on to other subjects, I want to take the opportunity to assure Mr Bibby and other colleagues that, if you, convener, wish me to come back at an appropriate time, I am content to do so. Echoing an earlier answer, I would wish all members of the committee—and, through them, other members of the Parliament who have raised issues with me directly, even this week—to have confidence, through transparency, that the outstanding matters of concern that have been raised with us directly, through the media or through reports that we have been sent have all been dealt with.

The feedback has been extremely positive. There are different metrics. How many shows were there? What percentage of the population attended? What was the number of total ticket sales? Most of that has been put in the public realm by the different festivals.

We are definitely beyond where we were, and the concerns that we had as we emerged from Covid, but I acknowledge that there are still questions about how we can ensure that the world-class status of our festivals remains intact. How do we ensure that accommodation is available? People coming from throughout Scotland and from further afield to see AC/DC or Oasis was a challenge for a city where most of the accommodation was already taken up due to the festivals. How do we ensure that the accommodation is on offer? How do we have affordable accommodation? Those are the medium and long-term questions that are being discussed in the Scottish Government-chaired strategic partnership for Scotland’s festivals. We need to think about how we best answer those challenges, but we are dealing with the challenges of success because the festivals were absolutely fantastic.

Having been cabinet secretary for four years, having previously grown up in central Edinburgh and having been going to the festivals since childhood, one thing that is definitely new for me is the unsurpassed level of international interest in them. There are receptions by the Brazilian embassy and consulate, the French embassy and consulate, the British Council and people from around the world. The international focus on the festivals is much more organised and focused, which offers tremendous opportunities. For example, the Edinburgh military tattoo is now touring internationally.

Some members of the committee will have had the good fortune to attend “Make It Happen” with Brian Cox at the Edinburgh International Festival or “Mary, Queen of Scots” by Scottish Ballet. Our national performing companies have had all kinds of discussions about touring those tremendous productions. I have the figure of £620 million in my head, but I need to double check that. We are talking not only about the value that is added to Edinburgh and Scotland and to artistic life, which we cannot put a financial value on, but about the internationalisation of all of that.

Committee members are aware that the British Government has put back its budgetary process, which will have an impact on how the Scottish Government manages the budget process and on how the Scottish Parliament deals with all of that.

The culture directorate has a lot of experience in dealing with budgetary matters and support for organisations. I want to give all our stakeholders confidence that we are committed to the levels of funding that we have committed to and that we will do everything to make sure that we are able to fund what requires to be funded. It is important that I give an absolute commitment on that.

As yet, no examples have been given to me—although there may be such examples—of how the delay to the budgetary process might impact on the support for different parts of the culture sector. Again, I want to give people something that, this year, they have in spades: confidence.

I have not sent out memos calling for such a thing to happen. If you wish to forward that submission to me, I would be very happy to look at it, but that is not the relationship that exists between the Scottish Government and Creative Scotland, and it is not the reality as I understand it to be.

Multiyear funding is not just about an uplift through the new funding that has been provided to Creative Scotland; it reflects a change in the different funding streams within Creative Scotland. As well as the multiyear funding route, there are other funds, including the open fund. I am very confident that there is a significant level of funding across the cultural landscape. The funding is wider and deeper—it is the best of all worlds. Does that mean that everybody has everything that they want? No, it does not.

However, there is a wider question. Mr Harvie is not suggesting that it is, but it is important to acknowledge that the culture sector is not only that which is funded through Creative Scotland. As I have said to the committee previously, in my mind’s eye, in relation to the areas for which I have responsibility, as well as those that are funded through Creative Scotland, we have another series of pillars that are really important to Scotland’s cultural firmament. We have our five national performing companies—as the committee is fully aware—we have our national museums and galleries, and we have a mix of other things. For example, we support the V&A, Sistema Scotland and so on.

Given that we have very much concentrated on that which is funded through Creative Scotland, it is perfectly understandable that, in other parts of the culture sector—in the national museums and galleries, in the national performing companies and in the basket of other cultural organisations that I have acknowledged—there is great interest in understanding how the remaining £30 million of the £100 million uplift will be allocated in the years ahead. If Mr Harvie has any suggestions in that area, I would be very happy to hear them.

I am very confident that the example that you gave will be considered in a much wider context, not only as a cultural project. As it happens, I was speaking with Fiona Hyslop, my predecessor, about that only last night. The rationale behind the project—embedding it in a regeneration project—was deliberate. Doing it in that way underlines your point, which is that it is not only a cultural fix to a cultural challenge for a cultural organisation, but an opportunity to pursue economic regeneration, boost tourism and improve access for people in an economically and socially deprived part of the city and the country. The benefits of investing in such a programme will have to be considered in the round by the Scottish Government, and I will be making that case very strongly.

Your point is fully understood, but I point out that three quarters of the issue is about audience travel, which is your statistic. I acknowledge that getting better solutions for the audience in particular—we have direct responsibility in relation to public transport, for example—is an area where we can have an impact, and I am very seized of the need to do that.

Will that solve the issue that Patrick Harvie raises about longer and international travel? There is probably less of a locus for me there. I am not saying that it is unimportant; I am just saying that we are focusing our efforts on how we can get more people to use public transport.

Examples have been raised repeatedly of people being able to get to cultural events by train or bus and then, because of the times at which those performances end, not being able to get home. That changes people’s behaviour: rather than use a train or bus, they will use a car. That is just a very concrete example of the need to be a bit more thoughtful about how cultural events can be properly served by public transport.

The example of the long-running Pitlochry festival was given. It is now much higher in people’s focus, given the artistic director who is there now. What is ScotRail thinking about the provision of transport from the central belt north, or from the north south, so that people can attend world-class performances in Pitlochry using public transport and not relying on cars? We are thinking about all of that.

Does that address all of Mr Harvie’s concerns? No, it does not, but we are definitely looking at all of that. If he has particular suggestions, I will be happy to look at them.

Those are all relevant points to consider, and I acknowledge them as such. I also acknowledge that not everything that is on offer in Orkney takes place in the context of a festival. Having said that, the fact that we are now bringing people together, including input from Orkney, around the festivals opportunities and challenges, hits on all these points. It is about looking at what the Government can do to make sure that we are not making detrimental decisions and that we are able to help pool resources that will support festivals and, by extension, cultural venues and cultural organisations.

We are beginning to consider some really interesting ideas in the accommodation space. On the provision of shared support or shared infrastructure, there is a range of potential considerations around staging, sound, lighting and so on that are relevant not only for festivals but for venues outwith festival times. Does everybody need to have the same rig? Is it possible to share things? The answers to such questions are not always uniform, but it might surprise Mr Halcro Johnston to know that, often, smaller festivals such as the Orkney festival—which is still very important in the Orkney context—and large festivals such as the Edinburgh festival have the same challenges. We are taking cognisance of all these things in working together across festivals and across the wider culture sector.

I am not aware of less money being spent in Edinburgh during our festivals and I am not aware of less money being spent in Orkney on culture. However, if Mr Halcro Johnston has examples of that being a concern—