Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was question 1?

By its very nature, the range of organisations that have become regularly funded organisations through the multiyear funding process is extremely broad. There is a challenge for Government—both with a small g and a large G—to work out how we can marry together what they are able to do in communities and society more generally to bring maximum benefit in spaces such as health and wellbeing, tourism or economic development. Through the Creative Scotland review process, I am keen to understand where there are examples of this working very well and where there are examples of it working less well.

For example, I am aware that the approach of Scotland’s three different enterprise agencies is quite different. Cultural organisations in the Highlands and Islands might well have a very different relationship with Highlands and Islands Enterprise than cultural organisations have in the part of Scotland that Scottish Enterprise serves, as well as in the south of Scotland and the Borders.

What I am trying to say to Mr Brown is that there is not a fix-all solution to all of this. We will have to make sure that we are making progress on that across the piece. Some of it will be very easy, and I have already given examples of where that is happening, such as with our national performing companies. What is Scottish Ballet doing? What is the RSNO doing? They all have tremendous examples of things that they are doing, and I encourage the committee, if there is an interest in learning what those might be, to do just that. Because the number of organisations that are funded on a multiyear basis has doubled literally only this year, this is new, so we will have to look at it with new eyes to understand how the significantly increased part of the cultural sector that is being funded through Creative Scotland in this way is able to deliver on a cross-portfolio basis.

We are discussing all these opportunities in a pre-budget space because the Government has committed to the biggest increase in cultural funding since the outset of devolution. We are ahead of target in delivering the additional £100 million annual uplift to the culture sector, and it is important that we do not lose sight of the foundational change that there has been in the level of spending on culture in Scotland and the fact that it is based on a multiyear approach to funding. We are the only part of the UK that is doing this; we are ahead of most other countries in the industrialised world in doing this; and we need to recognise that what we are doing here is groundbreaking, and is a good thing. Therefore, I would answer Mr Brown’s question by saying that I think that we have opportunities as never before to ensure that we are getting that cross-Government benefit.

One thing that I have been reminded of, and which it is worth reflecting on, is that, for historical and administrative reasons, certain things in the cultural space are funded from elsewhere. With music, for example, the funding for Sistema Scotland comes from the children and family fund, while funding for instrumental music tuition comes from the education portfolio. We are going to have to work together, but the good news is that we are doing so.

For example, we have recently seen the launch of what is a world first—a curriculum for screen education in our primary and secondary schools. It has emerged from Screen Scotland, which is answerable to me as cabinet secretary, and it will be delivered in the education space. Jenny Gilruth and I have been working closely to deliver something that no other country in the world has done to date, for which there is a tremendous welcome and acknowledgment that it is a good thing, and the benefits of which will be felt particularly in areas of economic and social deprivation.

We are trying to work together across portfolios to understand where culture helps education, economic development and so on, but there will be no one-size-fits-all approach.

Mr Bibby knows how committed I am to the screen sector in Scotland, which, as he also knows, is growing in economic importance. More is being spent now on film and television in Scotland than has been spent in past years. There are additional job opportunities in that part of the cultural sector, and I am confident that there are more jobs in that area. He highlights a particular concern about Scottish Television. He will have to forgive me—I do not have information about that announcement in front of me. However, I can give him the assurance that I take all of those issues very seriously. From previous examples, such as the BBC discontinuing “River City”, he knows that I have had concerns about anything that suggests that we are not heading in a positive direction when it comes to jobs.

Mr Bibby also highlights what that means for our wider democratic discourse—if important public service broadcasting provision is being downgraded, that would concern me greatly. I will, no doubt, be speaking with the chief executive of Scottish Television about this. I need to understand what exactly is happening, because we want STV to flourish, just as we want the BBC and other public service broadcasters, such as Channel 4, to flourish.

I would be very concerned about job losses, because we certainly do not want to see a loss of talent in the television sector in Scotland. We want to maintain confidence in the direction of travel in Scotland, which, in recent years, has been very positive, as we move towards a £1 billion gross value added to the Scottish economy from the screen sector in the years ahead.

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.

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.

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—