³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

A few years ago, one would regularly read that there were concerns in some parts of the country that local facilities—whether museums, galleries or other facilities—might be closed, which might lead to a diminution of cultural provision, especially in more rural parts of the country that are away from major population centres. That caused me concern. That is why, where we have a locus in being able to help, support, buttress and develop the likes of museums, that is what we are doing.

Lisa Baird has already drawn attention to the fund that exists to help museums to future proof what they do and to think about what they might be able to do differently and better, and how they can maintain their numbers. We have amazing museums in different parts of the country. I was recently at a museum in Kirkcudbright that I had not been to before. I would encourage anybody with an interest in painting, in particular, to take a look round it. That is but one example of the need to have different ways of being able to support the cultural infrastructure in different parts of the country.

I did not hear Iain Munro’s evidence, but I know that Creative Scotland—now that it has been freed from the annual consideration of budget applications—is very interested in taking a more focused approach to helping to support the development of the management of cultural organisations, venues and so on, because, as we know, audiences are changing, as is how people make best use of the cultural offering. I have already drawn attention to what the Culture Collective and Creative Communities do. I think that we have a good mixture, but I am open to learning whatever lessons we can from the Creative Scotland review to find out whether there are gaps and, if there are, what interventions we might make.

Mr Halcro Johnston is a relatively new member of the committee, so I say to him—through the convener—and to others that, if there are examples in different parts of the country, do not assume that there is an omnipotent, all-seeing eye that understands the realities in all the various parts of the country. Please take the opportunity to share with us examples of what you think we should be doing more of or less of, or doing in a different way. I will be very content to take those examples away, because, as you know, my approach is to work in partnership with the committee. That is a good example of how we can work together.

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.

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.

It was definitely the case that, when there was significant financial distress, especially as we emerged from Covid, there was concern in some parts of the country that certain local authorities might make decisions on the provision of some cultural services that raised the potential for funding to be diverted. The Scottish Government would take very seriously the prospect of the likes of Sistema Scotland or the Youth Music Initiative not being able to continue in one part of the country, because they are an important part of our commitment to helping children in more challenged social and economic circumstances to access music and cultural provision. I have been very alive to that possibility. I have been meeting the cultural lead and other representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities throughout my term in office, and meetings have been taking place more widely with the cultural leads of local authorities.

I am optimistic about learning more from the review of Creative Scotland, which has been looking into the availability of cultural services in different parts of the country, as it is not uniform and there is not a uniform approach. There is one issue around local government and another around the local enterprise companies—we have three in Scotland, and they take quite different approaches to culture. That is another layer of understanding: how are things working in different parts of the country?

We must then add the question of the extent to which Creative Scotland’s decision making is about what is funded and what that means in different parts of the country. Are there gaps? I would be keen to understand whether that is the case. I would say in mitigation that both the Culture Collective and Creative Communities funding streams, which are being provided throughout Scotland, offer important mechanisms to ensure that all parts of the country have the ability to draw down funds to support cultural activity.

Your question, convener, about ensuring that there is provision of cultural services is absolutely right, and there is a whole parallel discussion to be had about libraries, which fits into that context, too.

As the committee knows, I walk a fine line between wanting to ensure that we, as the Government, are doing everything that we can to support local government, the enterprise companies and Creative Scotland and respecting our arm’s length relationships—which exist for obvious reasons, as it is not for cabinet secretaries to micromanage what we might personally wish to have more of, whether on stage, on screen or wherever. I leave that to the experts.

Having said all of that, and referring back to the question that you posed, convener, I would say that there is a role for Government in using our convening power and the best possible information to ensure that we have cultural provision across Scotland that can by accessed by people of all backgrounds. In general, that is working well, and I am interested to learn, through the review, whether there any areas where we could be doing more.

I can see a very subtle hand movement from Lisa Baird, who may, I think, want to add something.

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.

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—