Chamber and committees

I will pick up on local government funding. You have just raised libraries, and you are clear in your letter that library funding is primarily a matter for local authorities. I appreciate that you have just mentioned the uplift in the last budget, and we are looking forward to the upcoming budget. What assurances can you provide to the committee about discussions that you have had with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance about the holistic approach to local government funding? Although we can focus on culture funding, which you are responsible for, we both recognise, particularly from the evidence that we have heard, that the holistic approach is much broader with regard to local government and that cross-portfolio work is being done.

The point about capital funding, in particular, has been well reflected in the evidence. That was a helpful picture.

I come back to the evidence from the witness from St Magnus International Festival, who told us that

“Scotland is a hugely rural and island community”—[Official Report, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 29 September 2026; c 35.]

which, of course, we will all recognise. He also said that, all too often, organisations

“encounter policy, structures and reports in a context that does not always make sense to us and does not feel as though it has had input from”

that particular part of the world. Again to labour the point about rural proofing, I just wonder what more consideration you have given to that issue since you were last at the committee in early September.

Perhaps there will be an opportunity to have further conversation on the rural proofing aspect.

Let us touch on the “Local Culture Scotland” report, which you alluded to earlier. It contained a recommendation on building local consortiums across the 32 local authority areas. Of course, if the Government gets its intentions down the track, we might not have 32 local authorities—they might be different shapes and sizes. You might need a second iteration of the report to better reflect local government reform.

The report proposes £500,000 for each local area. We recognise that local authority areas have different levels of deprivation. I come back to my point about different costs for rural and island communities. Can you give us a bit of an insight on your thinking with regard to the report, particularly given the upcoming budget? Is the proposed scheme one that you want to push further?

That is a really helpful part of the review and, as I noted earlier, you have provided us with more information on it.

As I said, I will circle back to inflation. You have talked about operating in the context of an uplifted budget. Across the sector and elsewhere, the Scottish Government’s commitment to the wider culture piece is welcome, but before we beat our chests too much, I want to look at the existing picture. A lot of the organisations for which you provide funding—particularly organisations that are touring, not least in my part of the world—have higher national insurance contributions and higher energy and fuel costs. Could you give me a picture of what that financial health looks like in reality, in the context of the funding uplift, given the additional costs that we face in relation to inflation, which Mr Evans highlighted?

Thank you for coming to the meeting. I appreciate the follow-up written evidence that you provided following our previous evidence session.

Let us kick off with the “Local Culture Scotland” report, which Jenny Young alluded to. First and foremost, will you give us a flavour of your reflections on that? What do you think about the local consortiums and the recommendation that £500,000 should be allocated to each local authority area? Of course, that sits in a context of uncertainty over public service reform and uncertainty about how those bodies would work in collaboration with you. Would such an arrangement add value? Perhaps you could kick off by giving us your thoughts on that.

Alastair Evans: My first point is that it is great to see the thinking in the “Local Culture Scotland” report. We have been in contact with the members of that team throughout their work. In the context of the two evaluations that I mentioned, it is valuable to us to have that third piece of work by Matt Baker and his collaborators, who are all recognised experts in the field.

You are right to note that there is a wider context. The report makes an ask to the Government, which the Government will want to respond to. Most notably for us, if the proposal were to be followed through, it would require an evolution of the Culture Collective programme. You will note from the report that the funding for the proposal would come in part from funding that currently goes to Culture Collective.

Culture Collective is an important part of the work that we do for communities, but it is just a part. For example, there is the awards for all scheme that we run with sportscotland and the National Lottery Community Fund. There is the work that we do with multiyear-funded organisations, many, if not most, of which work in their communities; for some of them, it is what they do—it is their raison d’être—and many of them are new entrants to the fund. There is the youth music initiative, which stitches across to creative industries development. We have good oversight across Scotland’s 32 local authorities of the different dimensions of the cultural and creative industries.

If there were any movement in that area, we would want to be absolutely sure that the approach was genuinely complementary and that it would not replace a programme with another programme, particularly in the context of public sector reform. That is how we are looking at it.

As you know, we are refreshing our strategy, and, partly in response to the independent review of Creative Scotland, how we work locally is one of the areas on which we will focus and look at models and options. We welcome the thinking in the report, and we will be looking at it alongside the Government, in particular in the coming months, when we see the evaluations of the place partnership and Culture Collective programmes.

That is helpful. The committee will be deliberating on our recommendations to the Government ahead of the budget. I was very taken by the “Local Culture Scotland” report. As I said to its author, there will be implications if the shape and size of Scottish local authorities change, and there might be a need to revise the proposal.

For our deliberations, will you help me to understand what the impact would be on the Culture Collective programme? You are right to highlight that it might be a case of moving funding from one place to another. What might the implications be for Creative Scotland of a recommendation to take forward the proposals in the report?

Alastair Evans: A number of options are laid out in the report. There are options for the proposed programme or group to be nested in other organisations—we are mentioned in that context—or it could stand alone. As far as I am aware, no organisation has been constituted at this point. There are options for structural mechanisms.

The role of cultural co-ordinator in schools has a history. That was before my time, but the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic has written to the committee to explain that. To us, that is a positive model, but we have people in Creative Scotland who are working in that way to link communities, local authorities and central Government, so there is a question about potential duplication.

We want to look at funding distribution. I know that it would be attractive to many local authorities to have a sum of that value coming to them. For some, the sum would be less than what they get at the moment. There would have to be calibration to need or demand and what is there already in communities. Some local authorities are at a place of maturity; some have retained their arts development officers and others have not. There is a range of situations, so, given the scale, whether a blanket approach works across all of Scotland would be a key question for us.

I have a very brief question, and then I will have one more question after this, if I am allowed, convener.

Do you recognise that there is a cloud of uncertainty about what the costs of reform will look like, which makes it difficult for Opposition MSPs in Parliament to scrutinise the proposals that you are bringing forward in the budget? We know that reform will cost money. Do you appreciate and recognise that uncertainty? You have asked us to engage constructively across the chamber, and I think that we are trying to do that. However, if we are to bridge that gap, you will need to give us more assurances. Will you recognise that?

I will turn to my last question.

The Parliament had a constructive debate about Scotland’s creative economy before the recess. A lot of common ground was found. In particular, we had a bit of dialogue around the games industry, which could certainly help in Scotland’s growth space. I recognise that the letter to the committee sets out support for a number of different areas, and I know that there has been a bit of debate about where gaming sits. However, there is no mention of gaming or, indeed, of the comedy sector, which has engaged all of us as committee members. Can you give a bit of recognition to those spaces?

You were frank in your opening evidence about the climate in which we are in. The £100 million uplift is certainly welcome. However, I note from the National Theatre of Scotland’s submission that its grant is around 24 per cent lower in real terms than it was in 2016-17. It alluded to energy costs and national insurance costs absorbing the uplift. Can you give us a real picture of how much of the £100 million uplift will be absorbed by the additional costs? That will help us understand the actual footprint of the impact of that additional money.

Before you do that, though, I would like to refer you to some evidence that we received from St Magnus International Festival, which noted that national policies and strategies do not always reflect the realities of rural and island areas, particularly in the context of budgetary decisions. I have put this issue of rural proofing of funding to you before, but can you address it again and tell us about any deliberations that you have had with colleagues on whether greater merit should be given to rural proofing by the Government, along with a wider reflection on what is being absorbed across the brief?