Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is all culture.

I have two questions, which I will ask very quickly.

Okay, then. I will skip my question about the visitor levy.

Screen Scotland, which is part of Creative Scotland, is a shining beacon of what a successful organisation looks like. The fact that it is being allocated an extra £2 million points to its success.

Earlier, I asked Iain Munro about the organisation and he spoke about how important it is as part of the work that Creative Scotland is doing. It showcases Scottish talent and ability, and there is also the sheer involvement element, which is important for tourism. I have already used the example of walking down the Royal Mile and seeing Americans looking for “Outlander” locations. There is growth in that for us. How do you see us moving forward in that regard? Obviously, we are investing in that, but we can generate some income from it, too.

Alastair, you have just hit on my next question. Screen Scotland, which is one of your major successes, has created that sort of footfall; you only need walk up the Royal Mile to see American tourists wandering about various places shown in scenes from “Outlander”. Indeed, we members see them when we go back to our digs at night.

You have received an extra £2 million on top of your £2.5 million base budget for that, but I note, too, a 110 per cent increase in inward investment in film in Scotland. That seems quite incredible. I know that there is “Outlander”, and there are other examples such as “Batgirl”—Warner Brothers did decide to scrap it but, hey, Glasgow still got some success from the film actually being made there—and “The Rig”.

I am quite interested in the fact that every £1 invested in film effectively creates £12-worth of economic activity. Surely that is a perfect example of what we are talking about. Do we not need to support such activity and ensure that we create and develop that kind of screen tourism? After all, we seem to be punching well above our weight here in Scotland in that respect.

Thank you.

Sorry about that. Good morning, everyone.

Iain, you said that, of the 28 organisations that were unsuccessful in getting multiyear funding, 13 are on a development stream to try, I assume, to build up future applications and so on. I am interested in hearing more about that. I am also interested in your comment that multiyear funding is not the only part of the process and in hearing more about the support that you give organisations to secure external funding.

Let me give you some examples, although you are probably aware of them already. When a witness from the Royal Scottish National Orchestra came before the committee, they talked about the idea of an endowment. When I said that that was a great plan and asked them to talk about such new ideas, they said, “Well, we have not worked it out yet.” What kind of support can you provide to develop other ideas that might be out there in the sector and help organisations secure some form of external funding?

That sounds fantastic. It is great to hear that that support is available for them to tap into and that they are able to look at other forms of finance, too, because it is frustrating for us when we get organisations coming here every year and telling us the same thing. It is good to know that there are other things out there.

I am also interested in hearing about the visitor levy. We know that, in its pilot, Edinburgh is looking at allocating 25 per cent of projected revenue from the levy to the culture sector. The issue has been brought up by many of the individuals who have given evidence; I know that it is up to each individual local authority to make that decision, but how do you, as Scotland’s cultural organisation, make that case to those authorities? After all, I know that you work with them at a local level. Do you say, for example, “There’s the Barcelona model” or “There’s the Amsterdam approach”? How do you make that pitch to local authorities and make it clear that such an approach could really help with their programmes to develop their local areas?

Good morning. It is nice to see you all. I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with something that the convener said, which, as you will know if you have watched any of the committee’s proceedings, is quite unusual.

That brings me to my final question. The bill has a broad definition of “restraint”. Will that cause problems? Should there be more focus on what restraint is? I will tell you some of the things that have been said to us, because we have to ask questions. We are told that holding a child’s hand to cross the road, or using a hoist or moving equipment for children with complex needs, could be taken for restraint. If the bill becomes primary legislation it will be the law, so how do we get a definition that everyone is comfortable with? How do we make sure that teachers are comfortable and know what they are doing and that everyone knows—for want of a better term—what the rules of engagement are?

I would like to go down a similar route to the one that I took earlier and ask about the broad definition of restraint in the bill. As you all know, this is primary legislation. If it becomes law, teachers and everyone else will have to abide by it.

The bill defines restraint as

“anything done by a member of the staff of an education provider with the intention of restricting the physical movement of a child or young person”.

That captures a lot of things. A member of staff might be trying to help a child or young person as in the example that we heard earlier of a child who is about to run on to a road. Using a hoist or other equipment for a child who has complex healthcare needs could also fall under the definition of restraint, as could the basic standard physical care of a child who has complex needs.

Clearly, work needs to be done on the definition, because it cannot be so broad as that provided for in the bill when you are dealing with such issues.