Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, June 29, 2023

Official Report 607KB pdf

---

Culture in Communities

Our second agenda item is our—hopefully pleasant—inquiry into culture in communities. We welcome back Angus Robertson, the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, who is joined by Lisa Baird, deputy director of cultural access organisations in the Scottish Government. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.

I am delighted to be back, convener. Thanks for your invitation to contribute to the committee’s inquiry on culture in communities and for the opportunity to make some opening comments.

I am delighted that this inquiry is giving voice to the talented individuals and inspiring organisations that make up our distinctive cultures in communities across Scotland. One of the Scottish Government’s ambitions is to meet communities’ economic, physical and social needs, ensuring sustainability and supporting wellbeing. Culture and creativity are central to that, and our culture strategy sets out our ambition for everyone to experience the transformative potential of culture.

It is no secret that we are operating in a challenging fiscal context as a result of sustained high inflation that has been caused by the economic shocks that Scotland has faced, including the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the on-going cost of living crisis. In light of that challenging context, we have been reviewing the actions that support our culture strategy. Although we recognise that the aims and ambitions of the strategy are still relevant, we will publish a refreshed action plan later this year setting out what we will do to respond to those challenges, and that plan will include actions on how we will support culture and creativity in our communities. I should say that I very much look forward to your inquiry being able to inform that updated approach.

Notwithstanding the challenging financial picture, we are proud that our culture funding reaches grass-roots, local, regional, national and international communities, and we do that through our support for initiatives such as the Culture Collective, Sistema Scotland and the youth music initiative, through the funding of our national public bodies for independent museums, and through our support for the national performing companies, the Edinburgh International Festival and many others. That support demonstrates the value that we place on cultural and creative organisations and their contribution to the wellbeing of the country, promoting the arts, providing employment and working with communities across Scotland.

Members have heard of the incredible work that our national bodies and local authorities do in support of our communities. I look forward to hearing the committee’s reflections on the extent to which cultural need and good place-based cultural policy exist across Scotland. As Creative Scotland says, good place-based cultural policy recognises the individual needs of people, communities and places, recognises the unique culture and heritage of individuals and communities, and responds to the ambition, need and challenges of each place. That aligns well with the ambitions of our culture strategy, and we remain fully committed to delivering at that standard for everyone in Scotland.

I will put on record something that I have not had the opportunity to say before. I want to give my huge thanks to the Scottish Parliament’s information centre. Like you, I have read the briefing that was prepared for today’s session. I found it extremely helpful and I want to put on record my appreciation to colleagues in SPICe for the work that they put into that.

The committee has visited many areas of Scotland in the process of our inquiry and we have found the community-based or place-based aspect of what is going on to be important. Key to the evidence that we have taken on all those visits has been the input of the Culture Collective and how successful and well received that has been. Therefore, I am interested in your thinking about the future of that model.

Elite artists and national performing companies are in a different bracket from what might be delivered on the ground in local communities. It has been suggested that the model for culture should be like the sportscotland one, with elite activities funded in one way and grass-roots activities funded at a different level, on a local basis. Have you given any thought to that dynamic? How well do you think that the model is working at the moment?

The first thing that I would say is that the funding and support of culture in Scotland operates on different levels. You understand that very well and you have heard some excellent evidence that explains how that works. For me, an important dimension to all this is that it is not Government that decides what cultural requirements there should be for individual communities. Rather, it is for people in communities to decide together what it is that they want to see in the places where they live and work.

The fact that we operate on different levels might be confusing, but it is in fact a pretty common approach. The Scottish Government has an arm’s-length organisation—Creative Scotland—to deliver funding and support to cultural organisations. Creative Scotland works hard to ensure that it understands and takes into account different cultural perspectives, needs, interests, concerns and expectations throughout the country. Of course, local government plays an important role with regard to its responsibility for cultural provision, and then there are the self-starting, self-funding, artistic or cultural organisations that plug into local government, Creative Scotland and, in some cases, the Scottish Government. The model is supposed to work in both directions.

10:30  

I know that you visited a place that I have visited in Wester Hailes: the WHALE Arts community project, which has been absolutely transformational for people who live in that community. I cannot praise it highly enough.

The committee has a locus of interest in making sure that communities are able to self-define their cultural ambitions: what they want to see in or close to their communities, and how they want to organise that with the support of local government, Creative Scotland and the Scottish Government. That is a priority for all of us, as partners. The final view that we will take on delivering that—forgive me but, for reasons that will be obvious, I cannot give you a sneak peek at this—will be in the updated strategy that we will be publishing. As the convener and colleagues will know, I will be the first to come here to update the committee on that and say how all that will work.

I want to highlight that there is a genuine effort by everybody involved to make sure that we are working with one another, whether that is Scottish Government ministers meeting local government colleagues, whether that is with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, or whether that is through those who have responsibilities for culture—I know that Christina McKelvie is having one of those meetings in the near future. On-going dialogue takes place with Creative Scotland and there are round-table events, which we did a lot of during the lockdown and which we continue to do. We are a small, manageable-sized country of 5 million people, and all of that contributes to us trying to make sure that we are delivering the best for culture, right across Scotland.

I invite questions from members, starting with Mr Ruskell.

I am glad that you mentioned WHALE Arts, cabinet secretary, because one of the themes that have come through in the inquiry is the power of such community creative organisations, which are driving and developing community and are hitting a lot of objectives around regeneration, education and inclusion. Those objectives would sit well within community planning partnerships, but another aspect of the inquiry is that we have found that there is a bit of a mismatch there. Cultural organisations and the cultural and creative sector are not always represented in the CPP structure. Do you recognise that? If you see creative organisations as being critical to the delivery of community in place and those wider objectives, how do we embed what the creative sector does much more into the planning structure, where discussions about funding, outcomes and partnership working can be taken at more of a strategic level?

There is a lot in Mr Ruskell’s question. It is fair to say that there are good examples of decision making that involve culture and the arts as a mainstreamed and valued part of community planning, such as in local place plans. However, the evidence that you have received has mentioned a disconnect in certain parts of the country. We know that that has been the case in some parts of Scotland.

I remember well that in Moray, for example, when arts development officer posts, which had been funded by Moray Council, were ended, the locality lost the interlocutor—the go-to person—who knew what was happening in certain communities and certain bits of the arts and culture scene. That role was lost from the council and, by extension, national organisations.

I am aware that sometimes culture and the arts are not afforded the prominence that they should have in terms of planning. I am also aware that decisions have been made in localities that relegate the importance of culture and the arts in decision making and delivery. We then open up a wider conversation, no doubt, given the very strong theme around the empowerment of local government to make decisions about local priorities.

At the same time, I acknowledge the concern from some that that might lead to culture and the arts being less supported in some parts of the country. If one is prepared to get rid of arts development officers in certain places, one might not give priority to what is a responsibility for local government in some parts of the country. That will depend on people’s priorities.

I acknowledge all that, but there is co-responsibility for delivering in culture and the arts space. I would prefer to take the approach—as I have said in previous evidence sessions—of being a glass-half-full minister in this area and work with colleagues and other decision makers to underline the importance of mainstreaming culture and arts priorities in local decision making and local plans. When one does that—the Wester Hailes example is a really good one—the wider benefits that it brings to communities, particularly socially and economically excluded communities, cross areas of responsibility of local government and national Government, such as health and education, and are absolutely profound. I look forward to working with colleagues in local government to make sure that we are doing everything that we can.

Is there more that we could and should be thinking about to protect the vital offering that culture has? Yes. I can look at recent examples in certain areas, such as decisions that have been made about Sistema Scotland, as a warning sign that certain parts of the cultural offering that are very important are being questioned. We all need to work together to make sure that no part of the cultural and arts offering that we want communities to have is lost in any part of the country.

Local autonomy and partnership working are obviously critical. However, as a principle, should creative and cultural organisations have a voice in community planning partnerships? Should that be the rule, in terms of individual decisions about what programmes run locally and how funding streams are developed? Should cultural organisations be baked into community planning partnerships?

That would be an entirely sensible approach. There are obviously some parts of the country that are better than others. As I have shared with colleagues before, this is an area where I might be encroaching on others’ territory. Intellectually, it is difficult to say that, on the one hand, I am in favour of local autonomy and decision making but that, on the other hand, I want to tell local authorities that they must do this, must do that and must work in this way. There is a tension in there that I am sure that we all recognise, but I would hope that this truth is self-evident: if we can include cultural and arts consideration in planning, including place planning, that will be of benefit to all.

In some ways, that is happening already, but maybe some of it is more ad hoc. Last week, Willie Rennie, the MSP for North East Fife, asked me whether the Scottish Government would become involved in cultural provision in Fife. In principle, I am all in favour of arts and culture in Fife, but I had to say that I want the local authority, Fife Council, to work directly with the agency that is responsible for that, which is Creative Scotland, and that if I can be helpful and supportive, I will be. I am trying to respectfully say to the committee and to partners out there that I want us to work in partnership. Mr Ruskell’s point about making sure that people are included is entirely sensible.

You mentioned arts development officers, which might be called different things in different places. It seems that Creative Scotland has had to step in to provide some of the development work on the ground, with the Culture Collective being an example of that. Where does that balance sit now? Do you see more of a role for national organisations to provide the glue and the link between opportunities and what exists on the ground? Alternatively, should local authorities or partners at a local level be funding and supporting that?

Local authorities have a responsibility—

Is there a balance there, and have we got it right?

Yes, there is a balance. Local authorities have responsibility for local cultural provision, libraries and so on, but no doubt Mr Ruskell and others could point to certain parts of the country where there has been a diminution of that. If there is a diminution of what is delivered by local government, there is potential for displacement and for the costs needing to be borne by others, whether that is Creative Scotland or the Scottish Government directly.

I suppose that I am signalling to the committee that I am very alive to that as a current issue, and I am keen to work with our partners in local government to ensure that there is not a sense that, because we have a lot of other priorities, the first thing that we will economise on, given the financial constraints that we are all having to live under, is culture and the arts. There is a balance to be struck, and no doubt this area will always come under pressure. However, by making more of the importance of local government in the delivery of cultural provision and working in partnership with cultural organisations, agencies and the Scottish Government, we can get to the best place.

Mr Bibby has a supplementary.

You touched on local community planning; I want to ask a follow-on question about Scottish Government planning at the national level. The themes of the inquiry have been very cross-cutting, and many of the issues that we have considered do not sit in your portfolio. For example, local government budgets and funding have a huge impact, as does public transport availability, which has been raised on a number of occasions. In particular, young people in Dumfries raised the importance of getting around and accessing cultural opportunities. How do you and your department engage with other ministers and departments to address the issues, so that there is joined-up thinking not just at local community level but at national level?

I give Lisa Baird advance warning that, after I have said what I have to say, if she wants to add anything, she can do so.

In Government or any other public administration, there is always a danger of silo thinking. However, I know that there is, in the Scottish Government, a very keen interest in trying to ensure that culture and other areas are taken seriously across the Government.

10:45  

That issue was the subject of Cabinet discussion and agreement. I presented a paper on the subject, which was to underline the point that Mr Bibby has made about other Government departments having a responsibility to think about how their work interrelates with culture. However, they also have a responsibility to think about that in the other direction—to think about the opportunity that culture offers them to deliver on their aims, whether they are health outcomes or something else. No doubt that could take us back to the issue of social prescribing, for example, but that is not the subject of this inquiry, so I will not speak at length about it.

Are we there yet? No, we are not. There is an understanding across Government that the right thing to do is to think about culture, the arts and social prescribing in a wider governmental sense.

Do we have all the mechanisms in place? No, we do not, yet. Do we have a unitary model that it is likely to be rolled out? No, we do not. It is a work in progress.

However—this speaks to Mr Bibby’s point—we cannot just think of culture in the sense of it being the responsibility of the director in the culture and major events directorate in the Scottish Government, and what the directorate does cannot be in isolation from what it means in various communities and parts of Scotland.

Is there more that can be done on that? Of that, there is no doubt. Am I alive to it? Absolutely. If there are issues that committee members have, or that the committee as a whole has, I would be very welcoming in hearing all that. That is why I said before, convener, that this particular inquiry is timeous, given what we will be publishing shortly; it will certainly influence my thinking and that of my department colleagues about all this.

There are two more issues that I would like to highlight. One is childcare, which has come up as being a barrier to participation. We have heard from academics about the importance of getting people to participate in culture from a young age. If the Scottish Government has plans to extend childcare—in particular, out-of-school childcare—it must not only provide that but provide opportunities for people to have cultural and sporting tasters.

The other issue is the impact of church closures, which we have heard about quite a few times. I know that the Government does not make those closure decisions—churches make them. However, we have heard a number of witnesses express concerns about church closures. They are unique facilities, with unique acoustics, and they provide cultural activities. There might be a need to support groups and organisations to take over churches in the future.

Do you have any reflections on those two issues?

I speak as the father of a four-year-old and a two-year-old, so Mr Bibby will appreciate that issues relating to childcare are very much at the forefront of my mind. Is there more that needs to be done? Absolutely—and for a number of reasons.

Self-evidently, if mums, dads and carers are not able to access childcare when they want to participate in cultural events, that is not a good thing. Similarly, it is important to think about the offer to children.

There is no doubt that some countries in the world are further down the road than we are. Are there specific proposals? I will have to defer to my ministerial colleagues who have responsibility for that area.

Is there much more that we need to do? I reflect that we are in a Parliament that has just managed to reopen its crèche, which I think is available for four hours a day, but members work a lot more than four hours in a working day.

All of us who have parental responsibilities of one form or another understand that there is more that needs to be done. Therefore, I give an unambiguous “Yes”, in response to Mr Bibby’s question.

I also reflect that, from our festivals to our museums to our built heritage, there are many cultural offerings in Scotland that are tremendous for young people, kids and even very young children. A lot of thought goes into access for the different age groups. Yes—there is more to be done, but there is a great offering. I say to anyone who is watching these proceedings from elsewhere that they should avail themselves of Scotland’s cultural attractions, because there is much for children to enjoy here.

On the question about church closures, one of the most significant contributions that local government makes to local culture is its offering of access to school buildings for cultural groups after teaching times. We need to understand that different levels of government can provide different kinds of support for culture and arts organisations. I put on the record our appreciation of the fact that a lot of local facilities are part of the local government offering.

Mr Bibby is right to highlight the fact that, as churches reduce their historical estate, church halls and churches themselves often become no longer available. I know that the committee has received evidence on that. That underlines the importance of local government making facilities available to cultural and arts organisations. In places where those facilities do not exist, thought must be given at the local level to what alternatives might exist.

I acknowledge that church closures are a problem in some parts of the country. In part, that is a reflection of church attendance and the nature of how we live now compared to how people lived in the past. However, it is in everybody’s interests to make sure that facilities are available everywhere in the country for people to use in order to pursue their cultural interests, whatever they might be.

I want to pick up on the point that Mr Bibby made about there being a lack of public transport. Some members of the committee travelled to Dumfries to meet various cultural organisations there. The Stove Network—which is a tremendous organisation that is based in the centre of Dumfries—raised the issue of the difficulty that people in the countryside face in getting a bus into Dumfries to attend events that the organisation holds. What can the Government do to drive change so that we can remove that barrier to cultural participation, which is a particular issue in rural areas?

There are a number of ways of looking at that issue. On a macro level—no doubt the committee has looked at this—a lot of Scotland’s cultural organisations and performers go on tour to various parts of the country for the very particular reason that people across the country should have access to everything from performances by the Scottish Chamber Orchestra to shows by individual performers, and everything in between. I note that, just by happenstance, Creative Scotland today launched its latest application round for £2 million-worth of funding for theatre and dance companies to go on tour. If there any performers out there who wish to go on the road around Scotland to get to communities in Dumfries or elsewhere, that funding is a way of addressing some transport issues.

Another way in which those issues can be obviated is local cultural institutions going out into communities. Having spent quite a lot of time living in the north of Scotland, I know just how much, for example, Eden Court theatre in Inverness does to reach out throughout the Highlands and Islands by offering performances and the opportunity to participate in cultural events across the region. However, that does not solve the problem for everybody, because buses do not run everywhere or all the time. That is part of the challenge of ensuring that we have the proper transport infrastructure in place. I used to live in a village where a bus came only two or three times a day, if you were lucky, so I am very alive to the challenges.

We want people in rural and more remote parts of the country to have as many opportunities as possible to access culture and the arts, so we must work with our local authority partners and people who are involved in transportation in order to ensure that we offer the best possible service. At the same time, we need to encourage people to make the most of services when they are in place. Together with other measures, that will ensure that we are able to provide the level of cultural offering that people want right across Scotland.

There are many things that work well. Is there more that can be done? Absolutely. Should we work in partnership with others to ensure that we deliver that? Yes—most certainly.

As has been touched on, many cultural venues are under threat. Many have closed, and there are lots of reasons for that. We have heard from community groups that feel under pressure to save their local church hall or community building. There are difficulties in that regard, but there are also difficulties in running and maintaining community assets; it would be fair to say that it is a great challenge for many community groups. What is the Scottish Government doing to assist community groups that have taken on assets in keeping them open for communities?

I will ask Lisa Baird to add to what I will say.

I absolutely recognise the pressures that venues face. Those pressures existed before Covid, but they were exacerbated during the pandemic. More often than not, venues have spent reserves on trying to maintain bricks and mortar at a time when fuel bills are such as they are, so facilities—some very much in the public realm, and some less so—have been closing.

All kinds of efforts are made to try to maintain facilities; asset transfer is one of them. I think that I am right in saying that asset transfer is not specifically the responsibility of the Scottish Government, but I will make a general point. Those responsibilities often fall on very small groups of people who are particularly community oriented. We all know that, in smaller places, the people who are on the community council are often also involved in other committees or groups. As Mr Cameron alluded to, those are big undertakings and big responsibilities. There is the added challenge that, although people might be in place now, they might not be there in one year, two years or five years. I am not sure that I have an answer, but there is definitely a question about how people can be best advised on the likes of asset transfer.

Lisa—would you like to say anything about that?

We have talked about planning legislation. The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 includes a new power for local authorities to produce local place plans, which was enacted earlier this year. That is an opportunity for local people to set out what they want for their places and how they should be developed. That has to be taken into account in planning, so it might be a way for local people to have a voice in maintaining treasured places.

11:00  

Thank you for that. I am sure that that is correct, but the issue is more immediate for people. People might have a village hall that they are trying to keep going, and they will need advice, assistance and support. However, I appreciate what has been said.

The committee has taken evidence on that, and there are examples of how the system does and does not work. I would certainly be interested in understanding all that and the extent to which we have a role, working with local decision makers. I go back to the point that I have made a number of times about not wanting to take responsibility from local decision makers. However, if the committee has identified a gap, given the current pressures that we know exist and the current threats to the viability of venues and facilities, I definitely want to understand that better. Therefore, I would be happy to receive any information that the committee has on the matter.

I want to ask a supplementary question about the issues that Mr Cameron has asked about.

A theme that has arisen is that a lot of organisations that work in the cultural sector felt that during Covid they all of a sudden became trusted organisations by Creative Scotland and other funders. They could no longer deliver projects that had been funded and planned, but they were given the freedom to do something appropriate for communities, and they felt really trusted. Organisations have felt that they are on a treadmill in respect of the overheads that are involved in applying for funding from Creative Scotland, local authorities and other funders, such as the Big Lottery Fund.

In Wester Hailes, we heard about doughnut funding and that the core costs for organisations are never funded. When something is project based, a project adviser might come on for a certain amount of time, and maybe organisations get members of staff. However, it is really hard to get funding for all the fundamental core costs of getting places cleaned and swept and the administration of bookings, for example. Is that something that you have been made aware of? Is the Scottish Government considering the matter?

We are certainly aware of that issue. That goes to the heart of why a multi-annual approach to funding of cultural organisations is seen as being so important by those organisations, and why—although it will not solve all the issues—it is also a priority for the Government and Creative Scotland. It is about understanding exactly the point that you have made about giving people the ability to get on with doing what they are supposed to do.

It is only fair to point out that there is a responsibility on those of us who help to apportion taxpayers’ money that the money goes to support, through a process, what it is supposed to support. That is why safeguards are in place and why there is administration and hoops that need to be jumped through. They are there for very good reasons. However, I acknowledge that, if something has to be done every year, a significant amount of time, especially in smaller organisations, is spent on dealing with all that, as opposed to being spent on the rest of what they do.

We cannot get away from the fact that there is also a balance to be struck in relation to organisations that offer something that is valued by the public and that people support. If we help organisations that offer something popular to raise funds, there is a question about dependency and freedom in relation to funding, and there is a balance to be struck in that. Is that balance always correct? No. Does it work better for some than for others? No doubt it does, but it is right that there is encouragement of the culture and arts scene to try to get funding from the public—from the people who attend performances, events and so on.

We need to put on record our appreciation for the people who support cultural and arts organisations through philanthropic support. That is really important in Scotland, and I encourage it as much as possible. At the same time, the Scottish Government, through Creative Scotland, has a very important role, as do others such as the National Lottery, the Postcode Lottery and other organisations that provide funding.

I am very keen to support Creative Scotland as it moves towards a new funding model that will, I hope, obviate some of the issues around annual applications for funding. That will make a big difference because of our experience during Covid with organisations being trusted—notwithstanding the tragedy of the pandemic. Safeguards were in place to make sure that finances were spent on the wider cultural and arts purposes that they were intended for, but we can reflect on what that says about our cultural and arts organisations. That is exactly what they did, and they should be very proud of it, and we should be very proud of them.

I absolutely agree, cabinet secretary.

I will build on some points that have been raised. With reference to the cross-governmental benefits of culture and the enriching nature of culture across society, we all know how challenging the public finances are, and the effect of that has come up in evidence that the committee has heard.

One of the interesting proposals that we heard in Dumfries was the idea of a percentage of various departmental budgets going on culture, given the positive benefit that culture has for the economy, health and the environment. I wanted to relay that proposal to you, cabinet secretary, as you continue to consider across Government how to meet the challenge of the pressure on the public finances while supporting culture as an enriching part of our society and a social benefit.

Thank you for the encouragement. That point is being heard right across the Government. It would be remiss of me not to observe that, at a time of particular financial constraint, embracing such a paradigm shift in approach to governmental decision making might be measurable only in five, 10 or 15 years, particularly when we are dealing with intangibles. Those timeframes are way beyond the normal timeframes in which Government decision makers think, which tends to be in much shorter electoral cycles.

To give a concrete example, I note that there is widespread understanding of why Sistema is such an important offering in communities in various parts of Scotland. It is literally transformational for kids from those communities to learn music. It brings a range of other benefits that relate to education, many of which are intangible, and it leads to divergence from other perhaps less positive paths that would be taken, were Sistema not there.

How does one measure something such as that? If we are to do so, I suspect that we will be able to do so only a number of years down the road. That necessitates colleagues in Government accepting that something is a good thing to do and embracing funding of it. We are pretty much at the beginning of that process, and it goes hand in hand with the likes of social prescribing.

Before Mr Macpherson joined the committee I sat here with the then health secretary and now, fortunately, new First Minister, who talked to the committee about why he and colleagues in healthcare very well understood the benefits that culture and the arts have to offer. The good news is that for individual ministers, the First Minister and the Cabinet—which agreed that this is the case—culture is agreed to be a priority across Government, because of what it can offer to the outcomes for which various Government departments are responsible. It is not seen simply as a responsibility for me, colleagues in the culture directorate and Government agencies that deal with culture and the arts, including Creative Scotland.

As I say, we are still in the foothills of making that process work. Will some areas be quicker than others in making that work? Yes—but there is definitely a willingness to make it work. I very much welcome the input of the committee to keep us on the right track and make sure that we do all that.

Does anyone have more questions or comments for the cabinet secretary?

Members indicated disagreement.]

We have exhausted our time with you this morning, cabinet secretary. I thank you very much again for your attendance.

I have a few closing remarks to make. I again thank the members for whom this is their last time at committee. I wish them all the best in their new roles. This is the final meeting before the summer recess, so I thank all members, the clerks, the officials and advisers to the committee for their hard work during what has been a very busy time, as is evidenced by the fact that two inquiries have been discussed this morning.

I hope that everyone manages to have a well-earned rest, and I look forward to seeing you all again in September.

Meeting closed at 11:13.