Seòmar agus comataidhean

For anybody following proceedings who is not aware, Mr Harvie gave the very specific example of the art works project in Granton, which is a very important project that is about introducing bespoke provisions for the holdings of our national galleries in facilities that are appropriate for the 21st century. The proposal to do so is part of a wider economic regeneration programme in Granton, Pilton and Muirhouse, which are in the north of Edinburgh.

Mr Harvie, you asked whether there is an understanding in Government that the art works is much more than just a culture project per se. In that example, we are helped by the fact that it is a capital project. That is the other area that I want to flag up to the committee as one of the things that is at the forefront of my mind, because I imagine that it might also be at the forefront of committee members’ considerations. We have been able to make significant progress in relation to revenue funding for culture—including the £100 million uplift, multi-annual funding and so on—but major building programmes fall under capital allocation, and capital allocation in the Scottish Government is extraordinarily constrained. It is an area in which we are literally dealing with the hand-me-down budgetary situation that we have through devolution, and, depending on what the capital allocation is, what that might mean for capital projects such as the art works.

I am under no illusion but that there is tremendous pressure; however we have a requirement as a Government to ensure that managing our national treasures—most of them are not on show at any one time, so they need to be stored properly—is not only what we do in relation to national museums, galleries and storage and, for example, the art works project. It must also be about what we do with our national records, which is another area to consider.

I very much welcome the question. Travel is one of the first areas that the strategic partnership for Scotland’s festivals, which I chair, has focused on, and it was the subject of a bilateral meeting that I had with the transport secretary. We need to get travel right to make sure that our festivals, but also the culture sector more generally, are properly served with the ability for people to travel with the least environmental impact possible.

I give Mr Harvie the assurance that that is at the forefront of my mind. I point out to him that the biggest single component of the audience figures for, for example, the Edinburgh festival fringe is people who come from here. I know that he is inviting me to share my thoughts on people who fly here from other parts of the world, and I am very keen that modes of further travel are more environmental—

Mr Bibby probably knows that I spent most of my professional life as a member of the National Union of Journalists, but that is not the only relevant union in this regard. I have also had regular meetings with Bectu and other trade unions on issues such as the decision to end “River City”, and I will absolutely have meetings with them about any potential job losses at STV.

The Scottish Library and Information Council’s idea is a very interesting example of new thinking about what cultural organisations—libraries, in its case, but potentially other types of venues—can offer as hubs for communities to access a range of services and opportunities.

That goes back to the question that was asked at the beginning of our evidence session about access to, for example, health and wellbeing cultural provision. I think that there is definitely something in all that. Earlier this year, in Falkirk, I saw a fantastic library which was, in effect, the community hub where the pensioners’ group and the book readers group met, and that also had a children’s play and reading area. There was much more than what one might traditionally have understood a library to house.

SLIC’s idea of a culture and wellbeing fund is to help libraries to offer more than they have done up until now and, as a result, allow them to maintain the numbers of people who are going to use them. One of the challenges for libraries is that, as many more of us are accessing books online and do not need to go to libraries in a way that we needed to in the past, they need to reimagine how they offer themselves and their space.

There is definitely something in the suggestion, and it is part of the answer to the cross-portfolio culture and wellbeing offering that we discuss with great regularity in this committee. That is one of the strongest aspects when it comes to delivering our aspirations.

I am happy to answer that question, convener. I have some words prepared, which I can read if that would be agreeable to the committee—or, because of the time, would you prefer me to get straight into answering your questions? I am happy to follow your lead, as you know what would be more useful for the committee.

I suspect that the words that I have prepared are not as succinct as you might wish, so why not just press on?

I am keen to build on a number of aspects of cross-portfolio working. As I have said in previous evidence to the committee, there are areas of the cultural space, in relation especially to health and wellbeing but also to the economy space, where there is the potential for us to do more.

I do not know whether the committee has heard from, for example, Scottish Ballet about what it has done, is doing and wants to do in the health and wellbeing space. I highly recommend that the committee hear about that work, because it is absolutely world class. Scottish Ballet is a really good example of a cultural institution in Scotland. It is a national performing company, so it is directly funded by the Scottish Government, and it is doing a lot in the health and wellbeing space, which is paid for out of the culture directorate’s finances.

At the same time, there are other areas in the cultural space, such as the screen sector, in which we can look at significant economic aspects. The committee has been well advised about the ambition for it to become a £1 billion GVA industry in Scotland by 2030, on which really good progress is being made. How does that marry with other parts of Government that have responsibilities? We are definitely doing more to ensure that we get the most out of opportunities. I could move on to tourism, for example, and there are other areas that are, to all intents and practical purposes, not part of my direct responsibility in Government. However, by ensuring that everything works together, we can do more.

Screen is another good example of an area in which we are required to do more. Screen Scotland has direct responsibility for television and film but not gaming, which sits in the economy space in the Scottish Government. Meanwhile, we have a national performing company—the Royal Scottish National Orchestra—that has a significant new source of income in the form of soundtracks for films and games. In painting that picture, I am making your point that cross-portfolio working is absolutely key. I have not even got to social prescribing, which is one of the committee’s previous particular interests and one that I have given evidence to the committee about.

I am cognisant of all the different areas in which culture has a lot to offer. Given that you are interested in the budget element today, I note that the key change that we are seeing at present—Creative Scotland’s multi-annual funding of twice as many organisations as before—is foundational for the delivery of cross-departmental benefits, which might have been harder to achieve in the past.

I will come to the specific question from Mr Kerr in a second. Historic Environment Scotland is in a period of transition as we speak. Mr Kerr knows that I was able to confirm the appointment of Sir Mark Jones as the incoming chair of Historic Environment Scotland. Many people in the committee will know Sir Mark, and I am delighted that he is taking on the role. As Mr Kerr and other members of the committee are aware, there are on-going issues in Historic Environment Scotland, particularly management-related issues. In acknowledging that, I am keen to highlight the general work that Historic Environment Scotland does and my satisfaction with that.

Having said that, I think that there are a number of reasons to have concerns about the management and governance in Historic Environment Scotland. Therefore, not only was I pleased to appoint Sir Mark; I have met him to discuss those issues and to give him the maximum confidence that I would wish him to have in addressing the specific issue that Mr Kerr raises, as well as others, and in ensuring that Historic Environment Scotland can continue its good work—with confidence that the leadership, both through the board and in the senior management team, is exactly what it should be.

I have not seen a final conclusion of any report about the incident that Mr Kerr raises, but he will appreciate that I am taking a very close interest in that and in other issues. There is a general understanding outside the committee that issues are being raised directly with members of the Scottish Parliament, with me and with the civil service. All of that will be shared with the incoming chair of the board, and I have a very high degree of confidence that he will take all those matters seriously.

I say all of that with the caveat, from my previous answer, that I am very mindful of the arm’s-length relationship between Government and public bodies such as Historic Environment Scotland, which is why I have such confidence in Sir Mark taking up his role. He must be able to get on with his responsibilities as the chair of the board. He has a long-standing working relationship with the chief executive of Historic Environment Scotland, Katerina Brown, and I am optimistic that they will form a formidable team. I look forward to hearing more about that in the weeks and months ahead.

Yes, absolutely.

That was question 1?