Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is a conceptual point about understanding the feedback on that. I think that everybody here will appreciate that, just because a particular body is headquartered in—for the sake of argument—Edinburgh, that does not mean that all its cultural work is undertaken in Edinburgh. We have cultural organisations that set great store by the fact that they tour, but that is not borne out in the headline figures on the disbursal of funds to particular organisations. That creates the impression that all the money is centred on Edinburgh, for example, which is not the case.

I speak as somebody who lived for a great length of time in the north of Scotland and who was able to enjoy all kinds of national companies and other companies that are headquartered in Edinburgh or Glasgow performing in places such as the Universal hall in Findhorn or Elgin town hall. That underlines the point that we have to be careful in understanding where money is disbursed to.

A second point is about how we encourage organisations that are currently not funded to seek funding. That goes back to something that we discussed right at the start, so I do not want to go round the houses again on that. One thing that the committee might be able to help us with is understanding whether there is a slew of organisations across the country that wish to be funded and that are not being funded for a particular reason. If that is the case, I would like to know about it. I do not have a sense of systemic underfunding of organisations that are based outside the cities.

It is probably undeniably the case that some cultural organisations could do more work elsewhere in the country. Mr Cameron will know that funding streams have been made available and are being disbursed right now to allow performers and people in the arts scene to reach different parts of the country. I encourage anybody who is watching the meeting to do so if they want to.

Point 1 is a conceptual point—it is not the case that the money is spent only in the local authorities in whose areas the organisations are headquartered. Secondly, I am not aware that there is a whole series of organisations that are based elsewhere and are not funded or are underfunded. Thirdly, we need to ensure that we reach the whole country.

I am delighted to have been joined by David Seers, head of sponsorship and funding, and Bettina Sizeland, deputy director for tourism and major events, who are very much involved in such considerations at a technical level in the civil service.

A degree of at least medium-term financial security seems an obvious and understandable demand from organisations. It allows people to concentrate on their core cultural roles instead of having to spend what many might feel, when measured against their wish to deliver culture, to be a disproportionate amount of time securing funding. As a result, our three-year approach will be hugely beneficial to the organisations that will be impacted by the change.

This is very much work in progress, and I do not know whether the colleagues who have joined me have anything to add. I should also say that this is the first time that I have taken part in pre-budget proceedings at a Scottish Parliament committee. I will endeavour to answer every question that you have, but we might hit areas where I do not have specialist knowledge. If so, I will defer to civil service colleagues. I will also be happy to write to the committee to fill in any gaps and I will, of course, be happy to come back to the committee at any stage.

Understood. The last time that I gave evidence to the committee, I had benefited from the experience of having recently visited the Postcode Lottery. I was interested to note that that organisation has regular community-accessible events, at which people who are interested in drawing down funding can learn about the process and get an understanding of the best ways to apply. They are almost helped through the process. The default position is, “We wish to support community organisations.”

Another lesson that we can look at is how bodies furth of Government do the work that they do. Obviously, we are the Government, so it is public money that we disburse. Therefore, we are in a quite different position. If we lowered our standards for financial compliance, transparency and so on, the committee would, rightly, be the first to say, “Hold on a second.” I would not want to do that, but I am seized of the opportunity that we have to learn lessons of best practice, and not just from within Government.

I have widened the scope, convener.

In all candour, I cannot answer that question. I am not privy to the report that is being presented to the board. That is an example of the separation of powers, if you want to call it that, in the culture sector. I will be very interested to learn what the conclusions are. I will want to be assured that everything is being done to ensure that the restoration of the sites can proceed at pace. I am keen—as I am sure Dr Allan is—to ensure that the appropriate safety standards can be maintained for visitors to those sites. I cannot give a sneak preview of what the board might learn, because it is for the board to learn before me, my colleagues or, indeed, committee members. However, I will endeavour to ensure that you have as much information as possible as quickly as I and you can receive it. That might be in response to a parliamentary question, or we can write to you to share that information.

I am sure that the committee will have been well advised about the real and the projected loss of income among a variety of cultural organisations, including those that are funded directly by the Scottish Government. That issue is very much at the forefront of our minds.

I will make a general point. On one hand, we have an opportunity here—I am speaking for the Government, but any influence that members could have on the public in this regard would be welcome. Obviously, we need to help those organisations directly, but they also receive support from the public—from visitors to their sites, in the case of attractions and historic buildings for which the likes of Historic Environment Scotland have responsibility. I am keen for us to be as imaginative as possible about how we can drive up their income to help to fill the gap that the pandemic has caused.

There are two sides to the issue. First, there is what the Scottish Government can do, and I think that you know the headline numbers. We have shared the information with you and some of you have asked parliamentary questions, in response to which we have detailed the amount of money that the Scottish Government has provided to help with that. At the same time, one area where we need to do more is in encouraging the public to make the most of those cultural sites, which will help with economic recovery and income for the organisations.

On Dr Allan’s specific point about the material state of some of the cultural real estate—I am sure that that is not quite the right way of putting it, but by that I mean all the places of historic interest—we know that, because Scotland is a historic nation, many of those places are very old. We have stringent health and safety standards, correctly, for people who visit old castles, stately homes and historic sites. That has been reviewed in past months, and I understand that the recommendations from the review process are being discussed by the HES board this month. You will probably be able to get more specific information on that soon.

On the fabric issues, I am sure that we all agree that we would wish for these places to be able to open fully as quickly as possible. That hangs together with my more general point about encouraging public access to and uptake of our cultural sites. There is more information to come on that question, but we are very much seized of the difficulty that some organisations are facing because of the drop in income.

I am not going to give a lengthy answer to Sarah Boyack, but her point is well timed and well made. In my circle of friends, there is at least one person who works in the cultural scene as a freelancer in the arts environment. He delivers his work to younger people, to older people in care settings and in other environments. What we are able to do to allow freelancers to take part fully in the cultural recovery and renewal process should definitely be part of our considerations. I say this with a smile on my face, but I should probably declare that any such decisions that I would make would not be for the benefit of any friend of mine who might be active on the scene.

The general point is well made. What we found at the beginning of the Covid experience was that freelancers were not covered by Government support measures, which is another reason for our taking the issue away and thinking as best we can about them, what they do and what they offer.

I will reflect on the focus group evidence that the committee took, which I have read in full. There were some helpful insights from those who took part in the process, particularly on the approach to budgeting and drawing down Scottish Government funds. There are definitely lessons to be learned.

Members will understand that there is a balance to be struck between ensuring that funds are disbursed on an equitable and logical basis—so that the organisations that are in charge of disbursal can then satisfy people such as you as to how that operates—and at the same time trying to do that in a way that is not disadvantageous to smaller groups.

I am cognisant of the fact that, the larger an organisation gets, the more capacity and experience it will have to enable it to satisfy the criteria for financial applications. Sarah Boyack mentioned smaller organisations that do not have comparable capacity to apply for funds. There was some feedback in the focus group evidence about people having to make multiple applications and being turned down, then finally being accepted and receiving lesser sums than they had applied for. It is helpful to understand that that is the reality for many people in the process.

Examples were also given in evidence to the committee in which people said that the system that they were involved in worked well, so I do not take the view that the system is not working; I think that it is working. However, as we move forward, I am keen to discuss the issue with colleagues. The paper that Bettina Sizeland described is, at its heart, about how we help the cultural sector to bounce back. If people are finding it difficult to access funds, they will find it incredibly difficult to bounce back. I want to discuss that with officials as part of the wider cultural recovery approach that we will take in the months ahead.

We should definitely listen to the voices of those who have given evidence to the committee. To my mind, that is a really good example of the symbiotic relationship that I hope we have with you as a Scottish Parliament committee. You can identify the lived reality in cultural organisations so that we as the Government can listen to them and work out whether the systems that we have in place are as fit for purpose as we can make them.

It is a two-part answer to your two-part question. I am aware of the issue and I thank you for the evidence on it. I am considering the issue together with colleagues as part of the cultural strategy that we are considering right now. Our work has to be guided by continuous improvement and, if we can make improvements, we should do so.

Surely it has to be committed to all those things. If our ambition is to be joined up and to mainstream thinking about culture in the arts and its impact across Government, that should be considered in all the work that we do. The question is: are we making the most of and encouraging an understanding of that?

I am not mentioning this because a member of the Green Party has asked the question—I am just finishing off a thought—but I remember seeing a slightly tongue-in-cheek description of prescribing culture and the arts for health reasons as tree hugging. I know that that was meant humorously rather than seriously, but I simply point out that, 10, 15 or 20 years ago, it would have seemed rather odd or out of place to suggest having a discussion about the relationship between culture and the arts and health. Thank goodness that is no longer the case, which is why I know that the comment about the health benefits of culture and the arts was made humorously.

Regardless of our politics, I think that we are ready as a culture to understand the important role that this plays. I know that we are just at the start of the parliamentary session, but I think that it will be the session in which we really begin to make this happen. That encourages and enthuses me, as I am sure it encourages and enthuses you.

I am happy to write to the committee to outline further details on the issue. Sarah Boyack probably wants to know the extent to which that certainty will then roll out to the organisations that receive Creative Scotland funding. As I am sure that she will appreciate, I am in a slightly awkward position in that we have agencies that are funded by the Scottish Government but are—rightly—at arm’s length from it. There is not ministerial direction on everything that they do. If there was, that would be a cause for concern for Sarah Boyack, for me and certainly for the agencies. However, between us and Creative Scotland, which I know has given evidence to the committee, we can provide supplementary background information that will, I hope, fill in any gaps that Sarah Boyack might feel that there are on the question.

To answer that specific question, yes, we will. Your more general point about cultural organisations being able to access other potential funding streams from other parts of Government underlines one of our central considerations in relation to cultural recovery and the Scottish Government’s approach to it. Rather than simply understanding culture and the arts in isolation in the Government’s culture directorate—I hope that we do not do that—we must think of culture more generally as having an impact across people’s lives and across the Scottish Government’s work.

I am giving a sneak preview here—I must be careful not to do too much of that—when I say that one significant consideration with regard to the recovery strategy is about mainstreaming the importance of culture right across the Scottish Government. An example of that is the impact that culture has on health, which you cited in your question. One advantage of taking such an approach is that it will show how different funding streams are disbursed and what people’s different experiences are. It will also enable us to work out whether people have different experiences because the criteria are different, or whether it is just to do with the nature of the agencies and organisations that are involved.

In my view, that is a perfect example of why we should take a cross-Government approach whereby we view culture as relevant to all areas of Government. If we are able to do that better in some parts of Government, we can learn to do it better in others. That would definitely be a learning—to use an Americanism—from the process that I think would be beneficial to cultural organisations that have perhaps had a different experience.