Seòmar agus comataidhean

In correspondence, the UK Government has suggested that it has changed its approach to retained EU law from the hard cliff edge for all legislation to a more limited schedule of legislation that is to be taken off the statute book in part because of the opposition of the devolved Administrations to the original approach. The suggestion is that there has been magnanimous reflection on our persuasive interventions and that that has, in part, led to a change in UK policy. I suspect that the impending defeat in the House of Lords was much more important to the UK Government’s consideration of the matter than listening to the arguments put by the Scottish Government or Welsh Government on the issue.

I deal with the UK Government regularly, and my general impression is that the involvement of the Scottish and Welsh Governments is tokenistic and a box-ticking exercise to say that one has “consulted”. However, I see very little evidence of the UK Government acting on the concerns that are raised and its U-turn on the sunset provisions in the REUL bill was almost entirely down to the arithmetic in the House of Lords, which would have seen the Government lose votes on amendments that were supported by members of the House of Lords with whom we have been co-operating.

I will have to write to the committee on the specifics of the analysis of the nine measures. It would, however, be correct to say that the Scottish Government’s response to the schedule of legislative measures that are to be sunsetted as part of the UK Government’s reformed approach to the REUL bill has been made more on the basis of whether something pertains to a devolved area of competence rather than whether it impacts on any specific policy consideration. It is about understanding whether the legislation is in a devolved area of import and whether it is relevant to that.

Ergo, the devolved Government should explain to the UK Government that the sunsetting of legislation in that way should not go ahead until there is proper governmental and, no doubt, parliamentary understanding of the impact. I think that that goes to the nub of Mr Macpherson’s question—obviously, I welcome him to the committee, as I did Mr Bibby.

Having said that, I am keen to ensure that the committee is updated, so I undertake to update you on our best understanding of the nine specific measures as they might pertain to any specific on-going policy, or policy development, on green freeports, which Mr Macpherson asked about.

First, I note that that is an extremely sensible reflection on the circumstances in which we find ourselves. For the record, it is important that we understand the context of why meeting net zero and climate targets is so challenging in this area. We are talking about how we can, in large part, retrofit buildings and facilities that were built at a time when one did not even conceive of the climate and environmental challenges that we now face. How does one retrofit a castle, or an older building or facility, in a way—to go back to Mr Golden’s point—that can involve a workforce with the skills to be able to do that appropriately?

For example, Historic Environment Scotland still has stonemasons, to protect and restore historic buildings. One needs traditional, older skills, which are, perhaps, less a part of the mainstream economy. During the Dumfries roundtable, I heard about that in relation to leatherworking—again, a mainstream skill 100 or 150 years ago—which is now very much in demand both in the equine sphere and in fashion. It is a multibillion-pound industry.

I heard the point that was made in evidence to the committee, and I hear very much what Maurice Golden said about matching the skills to the requirement in that part of the sector. Given that that has just been raised with your committee, and that you are raising it with me now, Mr Golden, I definitely want to make sure that we do everything that we can to help those in Government who have responsibility for skills and training.

It is exactly the same as the opportunity/challenge that we have had in relation to screen. Suddenly, a part of the economy is booming and we require people who have the skills to support the industry. People need to be able to find the appropriate training courses, the opportunities to learn and the route map into that industry. There is a direct parallel.

I want to look into that more and I will be happy to report back to Mr Golden and colleagues. The point was extremely well made.

First, the process itself has been exceptionally valuable, with significant levels of participation across the sector. It is a continuation of an approach that was taken during the Covid pandemic whereby having regular discussions with representatives from across the culture and arts sector meant that we were able to understand the themes, needs, interests, concerns and expectations of people in the sector. Obviously, during the pandemic, much of that was linked with the extreme circumstances of the lockdown and the income difficulties that individuals and organisations faced in the culture sector.

Now, we have obviously moved on, and organisations are able to perform and tour and people are trying to bounce back from the pandemic. A broad range of themes is emerging that still needs to be brought together in report form. We will, no doubt, be able to share that with you and other committee members. As you might expect given the range of participation, from individual freelance performers or people involved in other aspects of culture and the arts all the way to larger organisations, a very broad range of issues is being flagged up, which are reflective of the underlying factors. Incidentally, I should say that I also held a meeting with the national performing companies last week.

This is about how organisations can continue to operate in circumstances in which there is a squeeze on their income because they have perhaps not yet fully recovered to pre-pandemic levels in relation to the number of ticket sales or visitors. There are also the additional costs of heating overheads and inflation.

As we know, at a national level, inflation is officially at just over 10 per cent. However, we are hearing from participants that inflation in many areas that impact directly on culture and the arts can be a factor of that—I have heard figures of inflation of up to 30 per cent impacting on organisations. As one might imagine, those participants that have property—theatres and the like—have significant overheads that are squeezing their finances.

On top of that, some participants are reporting that other income streams that have traditionally played a significant role in their finances are also being impacted. The amount of financial support through philanthropy, for example, is proving challenging for some organisations.

Public funding is also of huge importance to the culture and arts scene in Scotland, as it is in most countries in the developed world. As we have discussed at committee before, one often hears the request for individuals and organisations to have the greatest possible certainty. We hear a lot of support for the intentions of the Scottish Government to support multi-annual funding horizons for individuals and organisations, which is the direction of travel that we are on.

A very strong theme that is coming back from all the meetings is that the culture and arts sector wants to work collaboratively through these difficulties. There is an appreciation that things will not improve in the short term, given the economic circumstances, and there is a willingness among those in the sector to consider what they can do. No doubt suggestions will also be made about what we, in the broadest sense—that includes the Scottish Government, agencies such as Creative Scotland, Screen Scotland and Historic Environment Scotland, and all the different stakeholders—can do to make sure that we get through this most extreme of circumstances, having protected and supported our culture and arts community.

One factor, which I have been hearing more of and on which we all need to reflect, is people saying that it was personally hugely challenging for them to get through the pandemic. Funding was available for that period, but, with the UK Government now ending that support, one hears people say that their level of personal challenge remains acute because of the uncertainty about the medium and longer term.

We need to reflect on the pressures under which people are operating and the responsibilities that they have to themselves or to small or larger organisations. Everybody is cognisant of examples—I have seen some recently—of beloved organisations and venues finding themselves in existential financial difficulty, which is obviously making others concerned about what the future holds for them.

As soon as we work up a read out from those round-tables meetings, I will ensure that the committee is able to see it; together with the evidence that you have taken here, that will help your deliberations and ours.

Yes. That is constantly being worked on by culture officials, including in discussions with other parts of the Scottish Government.

There has been significant budgetary instability, if I can call it that, given the events of the past year. In particular, there has been tremendous budgetary instability in the UK Government. Given the constraints on us, and given that instability, one must make sure that, if and when one moves to multi-annual funding rounds, people can depend on the projections of their funding situation.

Given that instability and those constraints, it is understandable that more work needs to be done in that area, because, for the people who have been mentioned already and for many others, it is going to be a very important development—for the better, I hope. As I am sure that you have heard in evidence, many people who run extremely effective and efficient organisations have to spend what they view as a disproportionate amount of their time every year making funding applications and considering how to maintain their organisations. We understand that.

However, it would not be responsible to change from the current funding model to a new one until we can say with absolute confidence how that will work and what it will provide, and give people the certainty that they want. I want Mr Cameron to understand that we are committed to doing that. As soon as we are able, I will be happy to update the committee on how we will do it.

I am extremely keen to give the sector the assurances that, understandably, it has asked for, so that it can focus more on what it is supposed to do—delivering for our national cultural life—and perhaps spend less time on the annual cycle of financial applications and reviews.

I can speak more about the world cycling championships than I can about the athletics ones, but I will ensure that we update Mr Ruskell—who, if memory serves me correctly, asked a question about them at a previous committee meeting. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that the Scottish Government is making significant financial contributions to the world cycling championships.

For those who are not aware of that event, I note that it will take place in Scotland. This is the first time that there has been an event of its kind. It will bring together the disciplines that exist in cycling as a sport, which will take place at the same time in different venues in different parts of Scotland. The event is going to be larger than the Commonwealth games, which is amazing. It will happen this year, and a lot of thought and effort are going into ensuring that there will be genuine community benefit and societal impact in encouraging people to get on their bikes. I confess to the committee that I may need to follow that injunction a little bit more myself.

I chair the board that brings everything together, so I am closely involved in the event and I appreciate how big it is. Anything that can be done to magnify and support the understanding of it as an event that is taking place in Scotland would be much appreciated.

With regard to the specifics of the athletics event, I am joined by Rachael McKechnie, who works for the Scottish Government on the events side of things, and she may want to add to my comments. I am happy to write to Mr Ruskell. I appreciate that has made a point about why, if it is a GB event, the Scottish Government might be carrying substantial costs. I will update him on the situation in that regard.

We are involved in sporting events with the UK Government in other contexts. For example, the Euro 2028 bid, together with other home nations, is an area in which we are working with the Governments in London, Cardiff, Belfast and Dublin, and I think that we are making progress there.

I agree with Sarah Boyack that—I said this in my answer to Donald Cameron—bringing in innovation as quickly as possible is part of the solution to how we move from where we are currently to a better place where we have introduced other funding streams.

Incidentally, as I think I have mentioned to the committee previously, there is also an opportunity for greater coherence in philanthropic support for culture and the arts. There are tremendously generous individuals, trusts, organisations and private sector companies that do an incredible amount to support the arts. That is another area in which we need to work together across agencies, with Government and the philanthropic sector. For example, with the national companies, which have been mentioned, we can work on what we can do to support international and touring efforts.

There is a wide range of ways in which we can help and support. Some of those will require finance, but some will not, because they relate to the convening power of Government or agencies such as Creative Scotland, which need to think anew about how we do things. One of my biggest takeaways from speaking with the sector in the round-table meetings that I mentioned is that there is an understanding that doing nothing is not an option and that we will have to face up to the scale of the challenges.

I fully acknowledge Sarah Boyack’s point about Creative Scotland’s spending constraints, and what she said about reserves not being a long-term solution to such spending constraints. One challenge that we have picked up on in conversations with artistic organisations is that they have been spending their reserves and, when one is trying to proceed through a storm, it is a challenge if one’s ability to use reserves is denuded. However, without making the same point at great length again, we are not in normal financial circumstances, so we are going to have to find a way through the storm, and I am sure that we will do it. There are a lot of good examples of the innovation that is happening.

Incidentally, I should say that I am interested in hearing from others who face similar circumstances, and I was pleased to finally meet with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for the United Kingdom, Michelle Donelan, who is my opposite number, a few weeks ago. She faces many of the same problems in her portfolio areas in relation to the funding of culture and arts and the same pressures, which people will be aware of, such as theatre closures in England, because of the same financial challenges, the post-Covid impact and so on.

I am keen to work with colleagues not only in the rest of the UK, but further afield. Are others taking approaches that we can learn from? Alternatively, we may be doing things that we can share. I am keen to work in a collegiate way with colleagues, and I am happy to support the culture sector’s call with regard to the Treasury’s tax treatment of theatres and other venues. I discussed that matter with Michelle Donelan, and I have subsequently written to the Treasury to underline how important it is in the current circumstances that, when tax decisions are made, they do not worsen the situation.

Where it is possible to work together, I am absolutely up for doing that, and I am doing it. Where there are more opportunities to learn from elsewhere, I am keen to do that as well.

There is a very strong case to be made that some of the biggest impacts might be felt through the endangerment of the smaller and smallest organisations. You mentioned a semi-rural community where there is a much smaller population, and that organisation might be the only arts and cultural outlet in that small community. If it was to close, there would be nothing.

Is that a serious situation? Absolutely—of course it is. It is therefore absolutely right that the Government is doing everything that it can for the directly funded national companies, that Creative Scotland is doing everything that it can for the regularly funded organisations, and that we are both doing what we can for the smaller organisations for which we have responsibility.

There is also a local government dimension to this. There is funding and support for culture from local government, and we are seeking to work more on that with our colleagues in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. For example, my culture minister colleague Neil Gray has been meeting culture leads.

We need to be cognisant of the value and the importance of art for art’s sake—I have now said that twice, because it is so important—but I think that we all agree that the economic and broader benefits that we have been talking about are the prize in linking culture with the wider governmental and societal benefits of mainstreaming culture. Going backwards is obviously not a good thing, so I am seized of ensuring that we have the time to consider where there are particular risks or warning mechanisms around particular groups or organisations, and the kinds of intervention that can be made to reduce those risks.

Will that be successful in all cases? I hope so, and I am certainly minded to work very closely with our colleagues in Creative Scotland and local government to make sure that it is.

The first thing for me to say is that it is important to have an open mind about all those things. I certainly do, and I know that Creative Scotland is updating its funding approach, so I am sure that people there will have listened to the points that you have made. If there are particular suggestions, I encourage you and others with an interest in the matter to take them up directly with Creative Scotland, which has the responsibility. For understandable reasons, we have an arm’s length between Government and the funding of particular projects, who prioritises what one thinks is important and the relative value of all those things.

You talked about screen. I am struck that there have been some amazing box-office successes in big-budget film productions in Scotland in recent years. That is tremendous. It is a good sign of the ending of market failure in the screen sector here and a move in a positive direction. However, it is particularly heartening to note the success of more independent and smaller-scale productions at present. I give “Aftersun” as an example, which was voted best film of last year. It was supported by Screen Scotland. It was perhaps not considered by some to be a traditional box office-type film, but it was tremendous nonetheless.

There are benefits from having more screen output produced in different parts of Scotland. At present we can see—well, we can see it at any time, I suppose, because we can stream it—“The Rig”, which was shot in Leith. “Mayflies”, which is a tremendous BBC production by a Glasgow-based production company and a cutting-edge Scottish author, was, significantly, filmed largely in Ayrshire.

One great thing about screen going in the direction that it is going in is that it is getting to a scale where it goes beyond the studio space that we have and is filming in locations that are not traditionally film locations. That gives significant economic benefits to the areas where those projects take place. Screen Scotland and Creative Scotland absolutely think about how we can support culture and the arts right across Scotland, not just in larger population centres or where particular facilities are concentrated, and they are thinking about that at present.

It is definitely on my radar screen. That is the reality that organisations are facing just now, which is why Iain Munro was right to highlight his concerns as a result of the feedback that he is hearing from the sector.

Different organisations are at different stages of financial challenge. That goes back to the point that I made to Sarah Boyack. Agencies—Creative Scotland, in this case—and Government can best help by having the best possible relationship with organisations that are going through those challenges so that there is some time available in which to understand whether and how it is possible to intervene.

Mr Ruskell is absolutely right to say that some organisations are facing existential concerns right now. He mentioned reserves; there are also other types of constraints and financial challenges, especially given the cyclical nature of significant parts of the cultural sector. At some times of the year, organisations take in money, and at other times, they make less money. There are all those complications involved.

That will be important not just for Creative Scotland and the regularly funded organisations, but for others beyond that. We should not forget that there are important cultural organisations and people operating in the arts community in Scotland who do not come under the RFO umbrella, and we need to think about them at the same time. The same applies there: how can we help everybody who is involved in the arts and the cultural scene in Scotland to give as much advance notice as possible of not only particular funding issues, but other problems?

Creative Scotland is very keen to help, as is the Scottish Government, along with the other Government agencies. Time is important, along with ensuring that we are aware of the scale of the challenge. That is why I gave the answer that I did to Mr Cameron at the start of the meeting. I recognise the scale of the pressures that the culture and arts community faces.

It goes without saying at great length that those pressures are also being felt elsewhere in the economy, beyond culture and the arts, but we are talking today about that specific area. One of the big jobs that we will have to do is to help regularly funded organisations and national companies, and we have made announcements about their funding, as well as those that are supported through other funding streams but are not RFOs.