���˿���

If I can take the virtual microphone back for a second, I will add that, in parallel to that, the decisions that we have been able to make with expo funding and in being able to support festivals beyond Edinburgh and Glasgow, working in parallel with the strategic partnership for Scotland’s festivals that we now have, provide another example of our trying to ensure that we have benefit throughout the country from the available funding.

I am looking at Mr Halcro Johnston, who has, I know, an interest in culture in the northern isles, which is a very good example of a place that has tremendous festivals. The Orkney folk festival is an example of that. If we have a tremendous model, as we do through the expo funding route—which really is first class—why would we not want that to be able to support festivals in the rest of the country? We agree with that point.

That is a good example of our trying to add value right across Scotland.

I look forward to hearing about progress on that issue and on all the outstanding issues that Mr Kerr has raised. He will appreciate that some matters lie in the human resource space.

Certain procedures are currently under way, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them, save to say that I have confidence that the appropriate processes are being gone through and that, with a new chair, the issues that Mr Kerr has highlighted and that others, I know, will want to highlight, too—I am perfectly happy to take any follow-up questions from colleagues who might want to raise them—will be dealt with. I want people to have confidence in the core delivery of what Historic Environment Scotland manages to perform in Scotland; after all, it is in all of our interests that issues to do with the management and governance that have been raised with members of this committee directly, and with me, are dealt with by the incoming chairman of the board.

I look forward to learning any conclusions that emanate from the HR process and other inquiries that will be undertaken, and I give a commitment to Mr Kerr, and the rest of the committee, that I would wish the committee to be fully informed of all of that. We all need to have confidence that Historic Environment Scotland, which, as Mr Kerr has pointed out, does such important work, is operating as it should.

That was question 1?

By its very nature, the range of organisations that have become regularly funded organisations through the multiyear funding process is extremely broad. There is a challenge for Government—both with a small g and a large G—to work out how we can marry together what they are able to do in communities and society more generally to bring maximum benefit in spaces such as health and wellbeing, tourism or economic development. Through the Creative Scotland review process, I am keen to understand where there are examples of this working very well and where there are examples of it working less well.

For example, I am aware that the approach of Scotland’s three different enterprise agencies is quite different. Cultural organisations in the Highlands and Islands might well have a very different relationship with Highlands and Islands Enterprise than cultural organisations have in the part of Scotland that Scottish Enterprise serves, as well as in the south of Scotland and the Borders.

What I am trying to say to Mr Brown is that there is not a fix-all solution to all of this. We will have to make sure that we are making progress on that across the piece. Some of it will be very easy, and I have already given examples of where that is happening, such as with our national performing companies. What is Scottish Ballet doing? What is the RSNO doing? They all have tremendous examples of things that they are doing, and I encourage the committee, if there is an interest in learning what those might be, to do just that. Because the number of organisations that are funded on a multiyear basis has doubled literally only this year, this is new, so we will have to look at it with new eyes to understand how the significantly increased part of the cultural sector that is being funded through Creative Scotland in this way is able to deliver on a cross-portfolio basis.

We are discussing all these opportunities in a pre-budget space because the Government has committed to the biggest increase in cultural funding since the outset of devolution. We are ahead of target in delivering the additional £100 million annual uplift to the culture sector, and it is important that we do not lose sight of the foundational change that there has been in the level of spending on culture in Scotland and the fact that it is based on a multiyear approach to funding. We are the only part of the UK that is doing this; we are ahead of most other countries in the industrialised world in doing this; and we need to recognise that what we are doing here is groundbreaking, and is a good thing. Therefore, I would answer Mr Brown’s question by saying that I think that we have opportunities as never before to ensure that we are getting that cross-Government benefit.

One thing that I have been reminded of, and which it is worth reflecting on, is that, for historical and administrative reasons, certain things in the cultural space are funded from elsewhere. With music, for example, the funding for Sistema Scotland comes from the children and family fund, while funding for instrumental music tuition comes from the education portfolio. We are going to have to work together, but the good news is that we are doing so.

For example, we have recently seen the launch of what is a world first—a curriculum for screen education in our primary and secondary schools. It has emerged from Screen Scotland, which is answerable to me as cabinet secretary, and it will be delivered in the education space. Jenny Gilruth and I have been working closely to deliver something that no other country in the world has done to date, for which there is a tremendous welcome and acknowledgment that it is a good thing, and the benefits of which will be felt particularly in areas of economic and social deprivation.

We are trying to work together across portfolios to understand where culture helps education, economic development and so on, but there will be no one-size-fits-all approach.

Mr Bibby knows how committed I am to the screen sector in Scotland, which, as he also knows, is growing in economic importance. More is being spent now on film and television in Scotland than has been spent in past years. There are additional job opportunities in that part of the cultural sector, and I am confident that there are more jobs in that area. He highlights a particular concern about Scottish Television. He will have to forgive me—I do not have information about that announcement in front of me. However, I can give him the assurance that I take all of those issues very seriously. From previous examples, such as the BBC discontinuing “River City”, he knows that I have had concerns about anything that suggests that we are not heading in a positive direction when it comes to jobs.

Mr Bibby also highlights what that means for our wider democratic discourse—if important public service broadcasting provision is being downgraded, that would concern me greatly. I will, no doubt, be speaking with the chief executive of Scottish Television about this. I need to understand what exactly is happening, because we want STV to flourish, just as we want the BBC and other public service broadcasters, such as Channel 4, to flourish.

I would be very concerned about job losses, because we certainly do not want to see a loss of talent in the television sector in Scotland. We want to maintain confidence in the direction of travel in Scotland, which, in recent years, has been very positive, as we move towards a £1 billion gross value added to the Scottish economy from the screen sector in the years ahead.

The feedback has been extremely positive. There are different metrics. How many shows were there? What percentage of the population attended? What was the number of total ticket sales? Most of that has been put in the public realm by the different festivals.

We are definitely beyond where we were, and the concerns that we had as we emerged from Covid, but I acknowledge that there are still questions about how we can ensure that the world-class status of our festivals remains intact. How do we ensure that accommodation is available? People coming from throughout Scotland and from further afield to see AC/DC or Oasis was a challenge for a city where most of the accommodation was already taken up due to the festivals. How do we ensure that the accommodation is on offer? How do we have affordable accommodation? Those are the medium and long-term questions that are being discussed in the Scottish Government-chaired strategic partnership for Scotland’s festivals. We need to think about how we best answer those challenges, but we are dealing with the challenges of success because the festivals were absolutely fantastic.

Having been cabinet secretary for four years, having previously grown up in central Edinburgh and having been going to the festivals since childhood, one thing that is definitely new for me is the unsurpassed level of international interest in them. There are receptions by the Brazilian embassy and consulate, the French embassy and consulate, the British Council and people from around the world. The international focus on the festivals is much more organised and focused, which offers tremendous opportunities. For example, the Edinburgh military tattoo is now touring internationally.

Some members of the committee will have had the good fortune to attend “Make It Happen” with Brian Cox at the Edinburgh International Festival or “Mary, Queen of Scots” by Scottish Ballet. Our national performing companies have had all kinds of discussions about touring those tremendous productions. I have the figure of £620 million in my head, but I need to double check that. We are talking not only about the value that is added to Edinburgh and Scotland and to artistic life, which we cannot put a financial value on, but about the internationalisation of all of that.

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.