Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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—

A lot of venues are now looking at exactly that issue—what might the offering be at a venue that is tremendously appealing in the high season, but also wants to appeal to people for the rest of the year? There is also the potential for co-location. I have one example in the forefront of my mind, but I am not sure whether I am at liberty to talk about it because they have not confirmed exactly what they are doing. It is absolutely and totally groundbreaking in terms of doing something brand new, which will definitely attract people.

There are a lot of projects in communities. For example, something might be not just a gallery, but a cafe. A venue might have break-out space for other events. It might have the opportunity to embed an educational dimension to the offering. It might be a warm space that can be used in winter for people who are concerned about keeping the heating on. There are many opportunities to make the most of museums, galleries and other cultural venues and spaces.

That is where the funding provision that Lisa Baird was talking about comes in. Part of it is about helping smaller or more challenged venues in particular, which perhaps do not have the capacity to be aware of the possibilities to do some of these things. It is about helping everybody and letting all the boats rise.

I am optimistic that there is an awareness that Government—small g as well as large G—and our agencies can help the cultural sector to make the most of not just what it has been but what it might be in the future, which might look a little different, because we are using the facilities differently.

It is all culture, and I know that Mr Adam is an outstanding representative who always stands up for the interests of his constituents and for Paisley.

I can assure Mr Adam that my colleagues and I have worked extremely hard in recent years when there have been dangers to the continuation of different venues, whether small, medium or large, and to understand what potentially can be done to support them. If Mr Adam would be so kind as to write to me about that venue, I will look very sympathetically at that case, and I ask other committee members to do the same if they have other examples.

Absolutely.

That formal commitment is there from the Government; a number of years ago, I presented a paper to the Scottish Government Cabinet on the mainstreaming of culture right across all portfolios, and it is the standing policy of the Scottish Government that it should be so. Moreover, the First Minister gave a speech at the Edinburgh International Festival this year in which he expansively reflected on his personal commitment to culture and the benefits that it brings across society and Government.

I acknowledge that we will have to be focused on helping different parts of the Government understand how culture can make a transformational impact in the delivery of public services. Instead of seeing culture as something that happens in one area alone, we need to understand that it has an impact right across Government, as it does across society. I am alive to that; I am just being frank with the committee when I say that it is easier to say that than to ensure that it happens in every context.

Convener, you have given an example of somewhere where this could have had stronger billing. I make the same cases from time to time, but the good news is that there is a tremendous willingness to try to incorporate that as much as possible.

Mr Brown has definitely hit on a challenge, which is the very unwelcome increase in employer national insurance costs that is being borne in the culture sector and beyond. I acknowledge that that decision by the UK Labour Government is having a detrimental budgetary impact.

Energy costs, on which a commitment that they would go down was given by Labour in advance of the most recent UK general election, have instead gone up. Given that our national museums and galleries are significant buildings, they face significant potential energy costs. Their heating and lighting costs and all the rest of it represent a significant outgoing. The increase in costs in those two areas—the cost of employing people in our national museums and galleries and the cost of the heating and lighting of those institutions—is undermining the efforts that we have been trying to make. We asked the UK Government to mitigate those costs, but it is not mitigating them fully.

I acknowledge that those increases are very unwelcome, and our views on the UK Labour Government’s detrimental decisions in those two areas have been communicated to it.