Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

I would be happy to do the entire evidence session on that subject because we should all be very encouraged by and excited about it.

The funding is the remit of Screen Scotland, which is funded through Creative Scotland, which is in turn funded by the Scottish Government, and we lay great store on what is happening. As an organisation, we are very enthused, as I am personally, about the quality of Screen Scotland, what it is currently doing, what it is able to do with the resources that it has and what we are planning to do.

I have numbers in front of me that tell me that we have been funding production growth—allowing more film and television projects to be undertaken in Scotland—since 2015 and that £9.9 million has been funded. The estimated economic benefit to Scotland as a return is £140 million. Therefore, the benefit of the Government encouraging that particular sector is massive.

Studios were mentioned. Ten years ago, we did not have a single one, and now we have facilities at Bath Road in Edinburgh, in West Lothian—being used for the second series of “Good Omens”—and in Cumbernauld, which are being used for “Outlander”. We are very pleased that the facilities in Glasgow that are used by the BBC are remaining in the BBC structure. We also have the Kelvin hall, into which the Scottish Government has, for good reasons, put a lot of money in order to be able to produce there.

Notwithstanding that we now have those sites, which are being used and are booked back to back, it is hugely encouraging that we are getting more interest and a demand for further facilities. We absolutely need to grab that opportunity with both hands.

Some aspects are perhaps less obvious than those that we might read about in the newspapers. We might read of another big-ticket film taking place in Scotland—I am looking forward to as much of that as possible—but understanding what happens below that, and what the Scottish Government and our agencies can do, is going to be key in ensuring that the benefit of that development is realised as widely as possible.

In that context, the most exciting prize of all, in some respects, is in skills and training. The Scottish Government puts funding in, through Screen Scotland and other funding routes, to training in different skills. That is another example of where the Government needs to be as joined-up as it can be.

Skills are being developed through the work of Screen Scotland. Edinburgh Napier University has a creative centre, which I reflect on because I had a conversation about it this week with the principal, that is developing skills that are mission critical for the screen sector. Edinburgh College is developing craft skills—we cannot overlook this bit, as it is really important—so that, when productions come to Scotland, we have people who are able, for example, to build the sets. That means that we need brickies and plasterers who can work in a film environment. It is very well-paid work, but it needs people who have that kind of experience.

I had the good fortune of being able to visit the Bath Road studio during the filming of “The Rig”. The set was incredible. It was huge—that is one of the advantages of the facility. I was watching a helicopter landing indoors, in a studio. It is amazing what they can do.

It was put to me that one of the reasons that they could make such a production was that they could use the workforce from the Royal Lyceum theatre, which was not operating at the time because of the Covid lockdown. In that sense, it was a happy circumstance, because the people who work in set design at the Lyceum were able to continue working. However, when the Lyceum is back up and working, what happens with the next Bath Road production, “Anansi Boys”? I am sure that they have great people to do that, but I am just trying to illustrate that one of the things that we in Government need to do—and that the committee can help with, in fostering an understanding—is to get things right for the industry. We must support more productions to come here; help to provide the facilities that will enable the industry to emerge out of the market failure of the past; work with broadcasters, streaming services and other commissioners to bring more work to Scotland; and do what is needed to provide people with the skills to support production. Getting all of that right will be a virtuous circle.

Scotland has amazing scenery as a backdrop to films. However, albeit that we wish for Scotland to be represented as a backdrop in plenty of films, the even bigger prize for us, as technology develops, is the filming here of anything that is set anywhere. As a cultural offering, that is a massive prize for us.

I put down a marker on an additional point. For decades, we have exported those who are our brightest and best in the industry. That includes the talent that we all know; just think of all those Scottish performers who are now based in New York or Los Angeles—or London, for that matter. However, added to that are all the people who might not be known—directors, producers and people who work on the shop floor, so to speak—who have gone where the work has taken them. We now have the prize of a full career opportunity, for life, based in Scotland.

Sorry—I have spoken about the matter for quite a while, and I could speak longer about it. I hope that I am giving you a flavour of the fact that Screen Scotland’s work will be transformational. It is a new string to our bow when it comes to culture and the arts in Scotland, and we should grab with both hands the opportunity that it brings.

I would be happy to hear about anything that you find out through your work that suggests that we should do more or less of some things, or do them differently.

I will answer that in two ways.

First, I will comment on social enterprises and the example that you gave of urban regeneration. The programme for government commits the Scottish Government to recognising

“the importance of place in Scottish culture, and to support communities to celebrate and preserve their heritage”.

It also says:

“this year we will start work on designing a National Towns of Culture scheme, to be launched over this Parliament.”

We are thinking about that and how it can best incorporate the efforts of all kinds of organisations. It gives an opportunity to listen to advice such as that given by Mr Ruskell to ensure that the approach is as broad as the ambition might be in the cultural recovery strategy to ensure that things are joined up. I am taking that down as a mental note and action point, because it is a specific point on urban regeneration and understanding culture in the broadest of senses. It is a good example.

On the second part of the question, I refer back to the much-mentioned cultural recovery strategy that we are unable to talk about in greater detail. I think that Mr Ruskell will be keen to know how tangible the ambition of joined-up Government is to include organisations that might not, on first reading, be thought of as being cultural organisations. I do not know the answer to the question. I am keen to make it happen and for my colleagues to think about it.

No doubt, the committee will want to come back and ask whether the cultural recovery and renewal strategy is fit for purpose and whether it fulfils the ambitions that I have shared with the committee, as well as meeting your priorities as individual members and collectively as a committee. That will be a worthwhile process, when we get to the stage of the Government agreeing the strategy and seeking the views of the likes of this committee.

That is a point well made and well noted. I want to give an example of the fact that our cultural producers are not just based in our cities. I pray in aid the fact that one of the biggest movers and shakers behind season 2 of “Good Omens” is based in Skye, which is a good example of the fact that it is perfectly possible to be a talented writer or director, or possessor of many of the other skills that Jenni Minto has highlighted, and to still work in that sector while living outwith the central belt. That is one of the advantages of our being a small country.

In reflecting on the issue that you raised, another point that comes to mind is the importance of commissioning in Scotland. That is where the likes of Channel 4, which has one of its commissioning hubs in Glasgow, have great potential. That means having somebody on the ground who understands the independent sector—Channel 4 commissions others to produce content for it. Even if the commissioning hub is headquartered in Glasgow, it should know about—I know that it does—and be interested in the skills that exist throughout the country. It is important that commitments are received from—in this case—UK-based public service broadcasters, whether Channel 4, the BBC or others, to commission in Scotland, and I have impressed on their chief executives that that should happen.

Incidentally, one of my concerns, which I am sure that many members of the committee also have, is about the prospects for the future of Channel 4. Should Channel 4 be privatised in the way that is proposed and the model under which it operates be changed without any guarantees for the protection of the likes of the commissioning structure that is now based in Scotland for the first time, we have the potential to lose the gains that I have outlined. That is one of the key reasons for my hoping that the UK Government reconsiders that privatisation. It has done so previously, so I hope that it will understand that, if one wants to ensure that different parts of the UK reap the benefits of screen and television production, and one wants to level up in a variety of places, cutting our footprint in different parts of the UK will be extremely detrimental.