Chamber and committees

Can I ask you to say a little more about the variation within private provision? You have talked about quality, but there is also the price variation. How does that compare with the cost to the NHS of NHS diagnosis? We can acknowledge that somebody else is paying for it—the taxpayer is paying in one case and the individual is paying in the other—but does the cost of providing the service compare between the private sector and the NHS?

Thank you. Do any of the other witnesses want to talk about any aspects of this general theme of private provision?

Dani Cosgrove, do you want to come in?

May I check? Do you mean that some of the private providers are doing NHS work and private work?

The follow-up questions that I had about the variation in standards were mostly addressed, and there were also some comments about the desire for some clarity and consistency around shared care agreements.

My last question on this theme is this: if—and it is a big if—we need to use capacity outside the NHS to bridge the gap between the capacity and the demand that is there at the moment, is there a case for saying that that external capacity should be located in the third sector and that there should be an agreement between NHS providers and voluntary not-for-profit organisations that could operate to an agreed standard for an agreed price? That would be private in the sense that it is not the NHS, but it would not be paid for by individuals. Would that increase the capacity across the sector to meet demand more affordably and inclusively?

Good morning. My question is on aspects that are quite close to what you have just covered in your answers.

I go back to Matthew Day’s comment, right at the start of our discussion, about his organisation’s experience. Matthew, forgive me if I picked it up wrongly, but it sounded as though you said that you were being used to clear the backlog but were then dropped because the funding had ended, and that there was some frustration around that. However, at the same time, I hear from witnesses that voluntary sector, third sector or community-based organisations can be really effective at joining the dots across the various forms of support that people need—and do so in a much more inclusive way that we might wish the NHS would deliver, but which is not happening.

During the rest of the committee’s inquiry, and when we put questions to other witnesses, should we ask whether the voluntary sector should be given not just a temporary role to clear the backlog but an on-going, long-term role to deliver assessments and diagnoses in concert with other forms of support? Should we explore whether the voluntary sector could be effective not only in clearing the backlog but also in the long term? Should we consider whether it could meet people’s needs not only in relation to assessment and diagnostic issues but more widely and holistically, and whether that approach could be cost effective when compared with scaling up capacity in the NHS?

The comment that I quoted is from the Culture for Climate Scotland written submission, which the committee has already published. It sounds as though your answer is that there is a much more flexible approach than our witnesses were under the impression there is to finding a balance between funding more organisations and providing a higher level of funding. That is a helpful steer.

You spoke about cross-portfolio approaches. A number of witnesses talked about the difficulties and barriers that they face in making the argument that a piece of work is more than just a culture project. Is it a climate project? Is it a health project? Is it an education project? Is it a communities project? It might be all of those things, but there are significant barriers to taking a holistic approach to funding.

I will give the specific example of the National Galleries Scotland art works project at Granton, which you will be well aware of. We were told that the project will meet many different public policy objectives that the Government supports. Anne Lyden told us:

“I have no doubt that the cabinet secretary has supported this project and would like to see it happen.”

I hope that that is true, and I would like to see it happen as well. She added that

“there is a question around whether the rest of the Cabinet and Government can see how it will perform in those areas”—

that is, beyond the culture portfolio—

“and agree that, because it will deliver those cross-portfolio benefits, it requires investment from those portfolios.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 11 September 2025; c 24.]

You have talked about the need to do cross-portfolio work better. What specifically will change? What will be different about the way that such decisions are made between portfolios in the future in order to make it less of a problem than it clearly has been in the past?

My final question is on the arguments that we have had on the transition to net zero and the challenges in the sector. I do not want to ask you a very general question, because we have had lots of useful input from witnesses on the issue. I want to be quite specific. One of the figures that stood out for me very clearly was that three quarters of the emissions that arise from the culture sector come from audience travel. Even if we make substantial progress on reducing emissions from all the operational elements, that will result in a very small cut in emissions overall. Is the Government willing to bring a new approach to bear in relation to culture, tourism and the economy in order to refocus on building audiences from domestic travel so that we are less reliant on the most high-carbon travel on the planet?

Good morning. You will have heard some of the discussions that we have had with witnesses about the balance between the uplift in culture spending benefiting more organisations or benefiting organisations to a higher level. Should we fund more organisations, or should we provide more funding at a higher level? Obviously, it would be nice to do both, and either approach would have benefits, but you will have heard the concerns about there being unintended negative consequences if there is too rigid a focus on spreading the benefit to more organisations.

Instead of having a discussion about the relative benefits, I will ask a factual question. A written submission from one of our witnesses states:

“The budget increases are welcome but their impact is reduced by ... The Minister’s indication that the increased budget for Multi-Year Funding ... could/should fund more organisations rather than funding fewer to a higher level.”

As a matter of fact, have you given an indication or a directive of any kind about the relative balance that should be struck between funding more organisations and providing higher levels of funding?

The comment that I quoted is from the Culture for Climate Scotland written submission, which the committee has already published. It sounds as though your answer is that there is a much more flexible approach than our witnesses were under the impression there is to finding a balance between funding more organisations and providing a higher level of funding. That is a helpful steer.

You spoke about cross-portfolio approaches. A number of witnesses talked about the difficulties and barriers that they face in making the argument that a piece of work is more than just a culture project. Is it a climate project? Is it a health project? Is it an education project? Is it a communities project? It might be all of those things, but there are significant barriers to taking a holistic approach to funding.

I will give the specific example of the National Galleries Scotland art works project at Granton, which you will be well aware of. We were told that the project will meet many different public policy objectives that the Government supports. Anne Lyden told us:

“I have no doubt that the cabinet secretary has supported this project and would like to see it happen.”

I hope that that is true, and I would like to see it happen as well. She added that

“there is a question around whether the rest of the Cabinet and Government can see how it will perform in those areas”—

that is, beyond the culture portfolio—

“and agree that, because it will deliver those cross-portfolio benefits, it requires investment from those portfolios.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 11 September 2025; c 24.]

You have talked about the need to do cross-portfolio work better. What specifically will change? What will be different about the way that such decisions are made between portfolios in the future in order to make it less of a problem than it clearly has been in the past?