Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do you see the V&A in London as an English institution or a UK one?

My impression is that the ask would have to be made of local authorities, because the Government is not going to come out and tell them that they have to have a levy or where they should spend that money. However, I think that absolutely solid cases can be made for at least some of it to go towards cultural institutions.

That is my point—I do not think that the Government is going to tell councils to do that. I do not know how the visitor levy could be made any easier—perhaps it is a systemic thing—but there is no way that the Government will tell councils that they have to do it or where to spend it. I just think that the case itself is self-evident, because cultural institutions, museums and so on are part of the reasons why people visit areas.

On that subject, I noted some of the different ways in which libraries are trying to diversify. You mentioned digital inclusion, but do you think that enough has been made of the huge demand from visitors for genealogical information? There is also the separate issue of financial inclusion. After all, we are seeing banks closing all over the shop. I know that there are now processes for putting banking hubs in place, but are libraries not well placed to try to capitalise on that?

Can I come in, convener?

In addition to the £4 million?

That would be great.

On the funding for the empire, slavery and Scotland’s museums steering group, I know that the project was very dear to the heart of former culture minister Christina McKelvie as well as, I think, Geoff Palmer, who died recently. I am very supportive of the project, but what is your level of confidence that the £5 million funding will come forward? If that funding were to come, would it come from the £20 million?

I went to the immersive Van Gogh exhibition, which was an incredible experience, but I forget how that was funded. I do not know whether there was private money behind that.

My final point is on genealogical research, social history and financial inclusion. You mentioned places where some of that is happening. The pressures on museums have also been raised, and I have said the same thing to Historic Environment Scotland, which does not do nearly enough to capitalise on the attractiveness of its assets.

My impression is that Edinburgh has been absolutely bursting at the seams this year, and I also hear that from people in other parts of Scotland. Many Americans have returned. Notwithstanding the climate challenge that that presents, of course, it seems that there is a huge opportunity there. A few years back I took a genealogical trip across to the Grand Central terminal in New York, and it was hugely oversubscribed, and there is Ellis Island, which will tell you about the appetite that is there.

I understand the point about cost, but local museums really need somebody who can answer genealogical queries. For example, if somebody from the States or Australia wanted to find out about their auntie who was from Forres or wherever it was, it would be great if they could go to a museum and talk to somebody who could help with genealogical research and social history. They would be getting a service that they could not get anywhere else.

On the financial inclusion point, it seems that if it is happening, it is happening piecemeal. Is there a case for saying in general to museums and libraries, “We are going to have to do new things to attract more people in?” Measures for financial inclusion could be a source of income.

I just wanted to say that it raises a really interesting point, because I think that this will require a change in attitude when it comes to monetising the assets that you hold. You could make the service free to local people, but the fact is that, if other folk are coming to use it, it puts a burden on the library. We should perhaps have that change in attitude: let us monetise this. That might well be difficult, given that, as Jamie Halcro Johnston has said, there are all these different ancestry organisations, but what I would say is this: these are your assets—try to monetise them.

Given those actions, do you believe that you have met the concerns that were raised previously about transparency and accountability? I know that it will be an on-going thing.

My remaining questions are about the nature of Audit Scotland reports. I am the new boy on the committee, but I am well aware that the recommendations that Audit Scotland makes are not mandatory—I understand that point. I am equally aware that Audit Scotland is funded by the taxpayer, and it has to be accountable, like other public bodies.

I think that it was Nye Bevan who said that politics is “the language of priorities”. We have mentioned a number of times local authorities and their priorities, and the Scottish Government and its priorities.

It may be because I am new on the committee, but I am picking up on certain words that I am hearing—for example, that Audit Scotland “wants” or “expects” something. However, nobody elects you guys. The people whom we elect to councils, and to the Parliament and the Government, have to take decisions on priorities in pretty constrained circumstances. Is it legitimate, therefore, for Audit Scotland to come in and make those kinds of demands of elected public bodies?