Chamber and committees

My question follows on from the one about multiyear funding—although it is also about the level of funding—and is for Creative Scotland. The written evidence that we have received from the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and the Accounts Commission highlights the extent to which culture funding has been cut. The large number of charities that deliver cultural services at local level have been very badly hit during the pandemic. The Accounts Commission highlights the extent to which culture has borne the brunt of service cuts in recent years. Are we underfunding the culture sector? We have had lots of great evidence about jobs, the sector’s impact in the community and cultural wellbeing.

Festivals Scotland told us that its members have had in effect a 25 per cent cut over the past decade. Have we been underfunding the sector generally, even before the pandemic? I think that Creative Scotland’s budget is 0.2 per cent of the total Scottish budget. Do you have any comments on not just multiyear funding but the level of funding? Are we even at the races? Is the level too low?

It is good to see the witnesses in front of us this morning. I will kick off with a question that follows on from the evidence that we took last week. In his written evidence, John McVay from PACT mentioned the potential privatisation of Channel 4, which you say could potentially

“have drastic implications for the UK’s independent film and TV sector”.

We got some very good evidence from the BBC about the importance of production in Scotland. Would you like to talk about how we avoid the risk to the recovery of the indy sector, which you have described in your submission?

That was a really good discussion about wellbeing, but I want to pick up the issue of employment. The importance of keeping people in employment in the live music and cultural sectors came across very strongly in some of the written evidence that you have submitted. The Music Venue Trust talks about how one in 11 jobs are in the creative industries, which might surprise a lot of people.

Last week, the Musicians Union gave evidence that about a third of musicians were thinking of leaving the sector. In the context of this year and now, our job is looking at what the budget should look like. What short-term measures do you think will help to keep people employed in the sector, but also make it resilient, as we are not quite through the pandemic yet? Could I start off with Clara Cullen from the Music Venue Trust, because that issue came out in your evidence. I will move then to Matt Baker from the Stove Network, because you were talking about the importance of retaining culture staff, and the others can come in afterwards. Over to you first, Clara Cullen: what can we ask for directly now that would keep the sector going and keep people in jobs?

It is very helpful to get the evidence and comments there, because I was looking for comments about the short term. Mike Jones made a comment about the importance of the JRS, given that we are not yet out of Covid, and Matt Baker’s idea about linking into communities, ticked all the boxes for me, because it is about employment retention, it links into wellbeing and communities, and it is potentially about the next generation coming through and retaining the skill set, so we are very keen to see that issue resolved. There is keeping people in employment and venues open. Is there anything else in terms of structural support you think we need to look at? I do not know if any of the witnesses want to come back in again, having heard the others’ comments. Matt Baker or Clara Cullen, is there anything else you want to come in with before we move on to the next question?

Matt Baker, you made a point about Dumfries and moving into the town centre. Could that model be applied elsewhere as we try to regenerate our town centres and link culture in?

Access to a digital connection is a crucial issue for people on low incomes and for older people, who might not have access to that. It is important that that is prioritised.

The two of you have spoken very eloquently about the short-term crisis, but thinking about this year’s budget, I note that there are, as you have highlighted, issues with venues as well as performers and all the staff needed to put on performances. Having met organisations such as Culture Counts and the Night Time Industries Association, I know that they are all very focused on what has to be done next. What are your thoughts on that? The issue of school tuition relates to local authority funding, for example. Does something need to be done about how employment is structured if we are to attract people into the industry or ensure that people stay in it?

Moreover, what about the debate over the percentage of funding for the arts? I see from one of our briefings that the Scottish Government spends 0.2 per cent on culture. Do we need to change how money is spent, and do we need to invest more? I would be interested in hearing both witnesses’ views on that.

It is good to have you both with us. I want to follow up on the point about people losing their jobs over the past year when live performances had to stop entirely. Do you have a sense of how many people we have lost from the arts and culture sector? There have been press articles about freelancers not getting support and having to go and get other employment.

What is the impact on your future role of that shift and people’s opting out and moving to private sector online streaming services, for example? What will the impact of that be on the BBC? It is hugely important with regard to accessibility. As I mentioned, the viewing habits of younger people, in particular, and perhaps older people as well—not to get into the detail of the licence fee—is an important issue with regard to cost and accessibility.

That was really helpful. In relation to longer-term planning, certain types of cultural performances move around the country, so venues will be thinking about not just this year but the next two years. The point about the public sector needing to think about longer-term funding, whether it be for three years or five years, was very well made, and the committee will reflect on that.