 Welcome to the seventh meeting of the Constitutional European External Affairs and Culture Committee. Members may wish to note that Mr Golden is attending the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee this morning and will be joining us a little later. Our first item of the agenda is a decision on taking business in private. Are we content that we take item 3 in private? We are all agreed. We are also invited to agree to consider the pre-budget scrutiny report in private at future meetings. Are members content to do so? We now move to agenda item 2, which is pre-budget scrutiny, cultural sector funding. As part of the pre-budget scrutiny work, the committee has been looking at continuing impact of Covid-19 on the culture sector and its longer term future. Today, the committee will hear from the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture on the evidence that the committee has heard over the past month. The Cabinet Secretary is hoping to be joined by David Sears, Head of Sponsorship and Funding Scottish Government and Bettina Sizeland, Deputy Director for Culture and Major Events Scottish Government. We hope that officials will join us at some point this morning. Cabinet Secretary, I invite you to make an opening statement. I can thank you very much and very good morning to you all, including Sarah Boyack, joining us remotely. Good morning, convener, and thanks for this. My first taste of the pre-budget process and the opportunity to discuss the culture sector. As the committee will be only too well aware from the evidence, you've seen the Covid-19 pandemic has hit the culture sector harder than most. In July this year, 70 per cent of organisations in the arts, entertainment and recreation sector reported a decrease in turnover compared to 31 per cent of businesses for the economy overall. Since the start of the pandemic, the Scottish Government has provided £175 million to the culture heritage and events sector. That's far more than we've received or are still due to receive in consequentials for cultural recovery from the UK Government. Providing the support has been a lifeline to Scotland's venues and organisations, and in particular to the freelancers who are such a crucial part of the creative economy. The culture sector is not alone in facing a franchise recovery. The same is true of travel and tourism, for example, with the premature end of furlough as a support from the end of last month. The impact of the pandemic, however, is such that it will take some time for cultural activity to return to former levels with the added factor of the new barriers that Brexit is causing for artists to work in one of their biggest markets, which is the European Union. Despite this, culture has continued to play a vital role in people's lives during the pandemic through its positive effect on mental health and in bringing people together in different ways. We've seen an acceleration in online performances and an increase in the proportion of people, particularly among the under-45s who engage with culture digitally. As you've also heard in your earlier evidence sessions, the pandemic gives us the opportunity to view things with fresh eyes and perspectives. We are preparing plans for a cultural recovery and are not seeking merely to return to the status quo. There will be new ways of doing this, as so many cultural organisations and freelancers have demonstrated during the pandemic. New opportunities to build world-class businesses, for example, in the screen industry, which has such potential to grow in terms of employment and skills. New opportunities to reconnect communities across Scotland using the convening power of cultural events. To enhance Scotland's international profile through cultural diplomacy and exporting our best cultural products and services. Our cultural recovery plan will be at the heart of economic and social transformation to ensure that we build a fairer, greener Scotland with equal opportunities for all. As your predecessor committee heard, the final budget of the last Parliament was intended to stabilise core funding for the culture sector in the midst of the pandemic. We are now at a different stage where, with many cultural organisations not yet out of the woods, we can nevertheless start to plan for recovery. This first budget of the new Parliament for the coming financial year will be in the context of that transition. We have committed in the programme for government to three-year funding deals for cultural organisations, which are core funded by government, to aid their recovery. Further decisions on that will be taken as part of the budget to be announced on 9 December. The committee will, I am sure, be only too well aware of the challenging outlook for all public expenditure and the tough negotiations I and my cabinet colleagues will face before final budget decisions are taken. I will welcome the committee's views on future priorities in discussion this morning and in the letter you will send me as a conclusion of the pre-budget process. You mentioned the three-year funding commitment in the programme for government, and you mentioned that that was for core organisations. It was a theme that came through in all the work that we did, including with community organisations. Are you able to say a little bit more about the vision for that and what difference it will make and how that will impact on community-based organisations as well? The first thing to say is that I am delighted to be joined by David Sears, the head of sponsorship and funding in Bettina Saesland, the deputy director for culture and major events who are very much involved at the technical level within the civil service of considerations like this. It seems an obvious and very understandable demand from organisations to have a degree of at least medium-term financial security, also allowing people to concentrate perhaps on their core cultural roles and not having to spend what for many might be a disproportionate amount of time when measured against their wish to be delivering culture as opposed to securing funding. The three-year approach that we are taking is one that will be hugely beneficial to the organisations that will be impacted by the change. It is very much a work in progress. I do not know if there are colleagues who are joining me who have anything to add. I should say that this is the first time I have taken part in pre-budget proceedings before a Scottish Parliament committee. I will be endeavouring to answer every question that you may have. We may hit on areas where it is not my specialist knowledge. I will defer to colleagues from the civil service and if there is anything else I will be happy to write to committee to fill in any gaps. Of course, I will be happy to come back at any stage, convener. Thank you very much. That is very helpful. Cabinet Secretary, I do not know if any of your officials want to come in on three-year funding at this stage. Good morning, everyone. Apologies for being late. We were sat outside for about half an hour, so anyhow, we are here now. Lovely to meet you all. My name is Bettina Sisland, as the cabinet secretary says. Just to add to what the cabinet secretary says, the PFG plans for one year set out our initial thinking on short-term recovery. We are currently working on a Cabinet paper that will set out both our thinking on short-term recovery for the sector and longer-term recovery and renewal to make sure that we both protect our core cultural organisations. We also make sure that we continue to grow world-class opportunities that are available to all. I want to move to questions from the committee and invite Ms Boyack to ask questions, please. Thank you very much, convener. I can also thank the committee and the technical staff for enabling me to join you all virtually this morning. Cabinet secretary, many of the cultural organisations that we have spoken to were grateful for the support that they have received during the last few months, but they highlighted two things. First, they were very worried about the coming months, not just in the pandemic but the period after. They were finding it incredibly hard to plan ahead without multi-year funding. That related particularly to venues, both large and small, who have also lost their reserves through the process because they used the reserves many of them before they got funding. Secondly, on the slightly different issue, many of the smaller groups, while welcoming the fact that there were funds available, felt that the complexity and the lengthy application forms were totally inappropriate and in some places actually stressful and just not possible for the organisations to fill in, given the lack of professional support. There were really two questions, and I wonder if you and your officials could pick them up. Can I reflect on the focus group evidence that you took as a committee, which I have read in full? I think that there are some very helpful insights from those that took part in the process, particularly around the approach to budget and seeking to draw down Scottish Government funds. I think that there are definitely lessons to be learned. I think that committee members will understand that there is a balance to be struck between ensuring that funds are dispersed on an equitable and on a logical basis, which the organisations in charge of dispersal can then satisfy people like yourselves as to how this is operating. At the same time, to try and do that in a way that is obviously not disadvantageous to smaller groups. I am very cognisant of the fact that the larger an organisation gets, the greater the capacity it will have and experience to be able to satisfy the criteria for financial application. Pointing, as Sarah Boyack has done to smaller organisations for whom there is not the comparable capacity to apply for funds, there was some of the feedback in the focus group evidence for people having to make multiple applications and having been turned down and then having finally been accepted receiving a lesser sum that they had applied for. I think that that is very helpful to understand that that is the reality for many people in the process. I also observed that there were examples given in evidence to you where people had said that the system that they were involved in had worked well. I do not take the view that the system is not working, I think that the system is working, but I am very keen to discuss with colleagues as we move forward because the paper that was just described by Bettina is at its heart about how do we help the cultural sector bounce back. If people are finding it difficult to access funds, they are going to find it incredibly difficult to do so. It is something that I am wanting to discuss with officials as part of this wider cultural recovery approach that we are going to be taking in the months ahead. I think that we definitely should be listening to the voices that have given evidence to yourselves. To my mind, it is a really good example of the symbiotic relationship that I hope we have with you as a Scottish Parliament committee being able to identify the lived reality in the sense of these cultural organisations for us as Government to be able to listen to them and work out if the systems that we have in place are as fit for purpose as we can make them. It is a two-part answer to your two-part question, Sarah Boyack. I am aware of the issue. Thank you for the evidence about that. It is something that I am considering together with colleagues as part of the cultural strategy that we are considering right now. If anything, our work has to be guided by continuous improvement, and if there is improvement that we can make, we should do that. That is very helpful, in particular for those smaller groups in terms of the resource. It has got to be a robust and transparent process, but it has also got to be workable for them. The first part of my question is about multi-year funding. You mentioned that in your opening remarks. You can understand for venues, whether they are large or small ones, if they are doing touring events or they have a plan ahead. Recreating staff at issue multi-year funding is going to be quite a big one. Did you say in your opening remarks that you are actually thinking of moving towards that? Would that be for Scottish Government funding? Would that link to Creative Scotland's funding as well? I understand that they are doing a review. That was one of the things that was picked up in our evidence. I wonder if your officials could maybe comment on those issues, both about the multi-year angle but also about would that fit through in the Creative Scotland's funding as well? I am going to have to defer to David Sears on that question, but we are keen to try and make the three-year funding approach workable. On the detail of that, I will ask David Sears to contribute to the committee. The SNP manifesto commitment was a three-year deal for organisations core funded by the Scottish Government. That will include Creative Scotland in such a deal. As the committee has heard from Creative Scotland, it is in response to the criticisms that it received last time that it put together a regular funded portfolio of organisations. It has been doing a review of funding. What we will need to discuss with them is how a three-year funding deal gives them the certainty of funding and how they, in turn, pass that certainty on to the organisations that they fund in the context of that review. I am happy to, of the back of this exchange, write to the committee to outline further details about this, because you are probably asking yourself to what extent will that roll out to the organisations that receive their funding. I am in a slightly awkward position, as I am sure you will appreciate with this in as much as we have agencies that are funded by the Scottish Government but are quite rightly at arm's length from the Scottish Government, and it is not for ministerial direction about everything that they do. I think that that would cause you concern and it would cause me concern and it would certainly cause them concern, but between ourselves and the likes of Creative Scotland, who I know have already given evidence to you, we can provide some supplementary background between ourselves that will hopefully fill in any gaps that you may have on that specific question. I think that that would be very useful, because it was quite a large number of the organisations that gave us evidence during the last few weeks. If I could ask the supplementary in the back of that, Mr Robertson, you mentioned the round table that we did have with the smaller cultural organisations, a very diverse group of cultural organisations, many of whom were also working in the wellbeing area of community involvement. One of the things that they did point out was that other funders had been very dynamic in their response to Covid. They had been proactive in contacting them and they had been keen to get that help out the door, but many of them felt, I would say, a distance from Creative Scotland and didn't feel that they had that relationship. Is that something that you might ask Creative Scotland to reflect on going forward? Yes, to that specific question, but the more general point that you made about cultural organisations being able to access other potential funding streams from other parts of government, I think underlines one of the central considerations that we are making at the present time in relation to that. I think that there is a connection to cultural recovery and the approach of the Scottish Government to that, which is, rather than understanding it simply, and I hope that we don't, in isolation culture and the arts, in government, a culture directorate, that we think of culture more generally as having an impact across people's lives and across the work of the Scottish Government. I'm giving a bit of a sneak preview here. I've got to be careful not to do too much of that, but one of the significant considerations that's going into the recovery strategy is to mainstream the importance of culture right across Scottish Government. That obviously impacts on health, as an example, convener, which is the organisation that you cited. Perhaps one of the advantages of taking an approach like that is that it will show how different funding streams are dispersed, what people's different experience is, for us to be able to work out are the criteria different. Is that a reason why people are having different experience, or is it just the nature of the agencies and organisations that are involved? To me, that is a perfect example of taking a cross-government approach, where we view culture as being relevant in all of the areas of government, that if we are able to do that better in some parts of government, we can learn to do that better in others. That would definitely be a learning to use in Americanism from that process that I think would be beneficial to cultural organisations that have perhaps had a different experience. I'm just not sure I'm not misrepresenting the evidence that we took. It wasn't so much about different government funding streams, it was about other funders such as the big lottery fund or Robertson trust and other funders of that nature that that theme was coming from. I understood. When I gave evidence last time before the committee, I benefited from the experience of recently visiting the postcode lottery. I was interested to note that they, as an organisation, have regular community-accessible events where people who are interested in drawing down funding can learn about the process and can understand the best ways in which they can apply. They are almost helped through the process. The default position is that we wish to support community organisations in the case of this body. Perhaps it's a lesson that we can also look at is how these other bodies, further than government, do the work that they do. Obviously, we are government. This is public money. It's quite different. You would be the first and quite rightly to say, hold on a second, you have, quote, lowered your standards for financial compliance and transparency and so on. I wouldn't be wanting to do that. I'm very seized of the opportunity that we have to learn lessons of best practice and not just from within government. I've widened the scope, convener. I was curious to pick up on some of the things that were touched on by some of the people who have given evidence to us about their view of coming through the experience of the pandemic and specifically thinking of museums and historic sites. I wonder if you can say anything about how the budget will reflect some of their experience. Obviously, emergency funding has been provided, but as has been mentioned, a number of organisations have talked about the challenges ahead, not least the challenges caused to the fabric of sites and buildings by them not being in use. I wonder if you can say anything about specifically what you're thinking about how to help that sector. I'm sure that you've been well advised about the real and projected loss of income amongst a variety of cultural organisations, including those that are funded directly from the Scottish Government. That is very much at the forefront of our minds. I would just make a general point. I think we on the one hand have an opportunity to try and I'm speaking as government and any influence that you could make on the public would be welcome in this regard. Obviously, we need to help those organisations directly, but they are organisations that also receive support from the public, visitors to their sites in the case of attractions and historic buildings that the likes of Heads have a responsibility for. I'm keen for us to be as imaginative as possible about how we can drive up their income to help fill the gap that the pandemic has caused. I think that there's two sides to this. One, what is it that the Scottish Government can do? I think that you know the headline numbers and we've shared with you and I know some of you have asked parliamentary questions where we have detailed the amount of money that has come out from the Scottish Government to try and help with this. At the same time, I think that one of the areas that we need to do more is to help encourage the public to make the most of these cultural sites. That will help with economic recovery and income for the organisations in question and specifically on the point of the material state of some of the cultural real estate. I'm sure that that's probably not quite the right way of putting it, but all of the places of historic interests that we know, many of them, given Scotland's historic nation, are very old. We have very stringent and correctly so health and safety standards for people who are going to visit old castles or stately homes and historic sites. We're at a stage where this has been reviewed in past months and I understand that the recommendations from this review process, and this is specific to your question, Dr Allan, is being discussed by the board of HES this month. It's something that you will probably be able to get more specific information on the fabric-related issues. I'm sure that we all agree that we would wish those places to be able to open in full as quickly as possible. That hangs together with the point that I was making more generally about encouraging public access and uptake of our cultural sites. There's more information to come on that question, but we are very much seized off the difficulty with which a number of organisations are facing because of the drop in income. On that point, specifically on Historic Environment Scotland and its historic real estate, you'll be aware that a number of us have asked questions about this without asking about specific sites. If they're meeting about this, are you hopeful that we will get back to something like the number of sites open that we had pre-pandemic? I can't answer that question, Dr Allan. I'm not privy to the report that is being presented to the boarders. An example of the separation of powers, if you want to call it that, within the cultural sector, I'm very interested to learn what the conclusions are. I would want to be assured that everything is being done to make sure that the restoration of these sites is able to proceed at pace. As I'm sure you are, I'm keen to make sure that people who visit these sites are doing so with the appropriate safety standards being maintained. I can't give a sneak preview of what the board might be learning because it's for the board to learn before myself and colleagues or indeed yourselves, but I will endeavour to ensure that you have as much information as quickly as I and you can receive it in the form of whether it's a parliamentary question or we can write to ensure that information. I'm very grateful for that. On the budget, coming back to how the budget will recognise how we do new things, again thinking of perhaps the museum sector here, but there's obviously been support for the things that the museum sector and the gallery sector have been doing in the digital sphere. Some of that situation has obviously not been of their making, but they've made the best of it. Thinking more positively about the opportunities that that sector has, will the budget recognise the fact that museums and galleries are doing things differently? I'm not just thinking of the move to digital here, but also perhaps thinking about the fact that they have plenty of stuff in their vaults that nobody ever sees, that I'm sure they've now been thinking about how to bring that to a wider audience as well. Yes, that's the short answer, but expanding on that, I think it behoves us all to try and help and support those who are delivering this, whether it's museums, whether it's the cultural or organisations from a management point of view, is to reimagine the cultural recovery that we're all in favour of, and that is to not seek to simply go back to where we were pre Covid, but to realise that much has changed, and you make the point, and the point is well made, that we are enjoying and consuming culture in ways that we didn't before, and that we need to think, both on a policy and on a budgetary approach, what difference that should make to our thinking. So, yes, we're alive to that, yes, we're in the middle of that process, and when we come back to committee at the stage that budgets have been agreed and processes have gone through, I would be more than content to be able to share with you and reflect on the extent to which we have been guided by an awareness of those changes. One thing just in passing about all of this, I've been very keen to say to civil service colleagues and meeting with our organisations, cultural organisations, that we are not the only people who are going through this in the cultural and arts world. Every other country in the world is having to grapple with the impact of the pandemic, and many of them are very similar in terms of the impact on obviously a lack of public access to facilities, a drop in income, concern about how one recovers, then how is one intending to recover. I've been very keen to impress on everybody involved that we should be trying to learn the lessons from elsewhere as well as here. I don't think there will be a monopoly of common sense here, and I'm very keen to work out the best way in which we can learn and then emulate best practice for elsewhere as well. That's again something that I would be happy to feedback given that we're kind of in this process at the present time about what we have learned and what we haven't to make sure that we can do this as well as we can. Given us a hint this morning, cabinet secretary, about what a cultural recovery could look like and what the benefits could be across society and across the work of government, I just want to push you a bit more on that, because if we look at the national outcome for culture, it says that we are creative and our vibrant and diverse cultures are expressed and enjoyed widely. Great outcome, but it perhaps doesn't describe what, for example, an organisation like Systema Scotland does, which is much more, I would say, around community regeneration, around health, around ensuring that there's excellent outcomes for school leavers and the whole regeneration of a community. I'm just thinking about, in terms of the budget, how do we actually ensure that the wider work of organisations like that is actually captured in the way that budgets are constructed and captured within the national performance framework as well? A very well-timed question and welcome to the committee. I think that you're aware of the announcement that was made by the Scottish Government in terms of funding for Systema this week, which I know has been very warmly welcomed by the organisation for anybody who's watching proceedings, because I'm sure all committee members will know intimately what it is that Systema does and how it literally transforms the learning experience of younger people. It's an excellent example of something, yes, being primarily a culturally focused intervention, but one that, indisputably, has an impact on the more general quality of people's lives, and then we hope as a knock-on consequence of their opportunities in life. The point that you make is, in its own way, an optimal example of the point that my sneak preview, which you've kindly invited me to show even more of an insight about, which I'm going to have to resist, forgive me, Mr Ruskell, but just to reiterate the point, and this is a very good example of it, of projects that have an impact across Government responsibility. I'm very keen that those benefits are understood amongst colleagues whose primary responsibility might be health or might be education or maybe justice. I'm sure many of them are, because we are all parliamentarians who represent a constituency or a region, so we are aware of the impact that some of these projects do, but I think that mainstreaming that thinking across Government, I genuinely hope, is going to help deliver on the aspirations that we have in the culture strategy and we have in the programme for government. Systema is possibly one of the best examples of that, so forgive me, but I'm not going to show any more leg on the creative recovery strategy. I'm sure we will come back to that, and I hope that it will be worthy of the ambition, because it should be. I don't know if there's anything that colleagues want to add. I just wanted to refer to the culture strategy as well, because that was published in February 2020, just before the pandemic, and I think it provides still a very good platform and framework to deliver recovery. The vision is still relevant. The outcomes are still relevant. Some of the actions need updating, but I just wanted to recognise the culture strategy, because stakeholders have worked right across Scotland over three years to produce it, and it's still a very relevant guiding document for recovery. Systema has been an incredible success and I've been aware of its work in Stirling from the outset. I suppose the question is that there are lots of different organisations, particularly social enterprises, that are creative, that are innovative, that are working around Scotland on town centre regeneration, for example, and taking empty, empty shop fronts and making these as hubs for creatives to come in and doing some incredible innovative work, but that innovative work doesn't always fit. It doesn't fit the criteria for charitable giving or even creative Scotland. I know a number of organisations like Made in Stirling, for example, which I think the First Minister visited a year or two ago, who really struggled to access funding from Creative Scotland because it don't easily fit the criteria, because what they're doing in itself is very holistic. They're working on regeneration, they're working on multiple outcomes. I sense that that could be the case for other organisations that are doing work, say, on health, through music, for example, or other group activities that benefit people with autism. It doesn't necessarily fit any kind of single funding criteria, so that's really where the buck stops. I'm interested in how the budget and the cultural strategy will unlock that creativity, because for me this is about 20-minute neighbourhoods and urban regeneration and all the things that we need to happen in our communities. I'll answer that in two ways. First, specifically in relation to social enterprises and the example was given of urban regeneration and so on. The programme for government commits the Scottish Government, and I'm quoting, to recognise the importance of place in Scottish culture and to support communities to celebrate and preserve their heritage, and this year we'll start working on designing a national towns of culture scheme to be launched over this Parliament. That is something that at the present time has been thought about, about how that can best incorporate the efforts of all kinds of organisations, and it gives an opportunity to listen to advice such as that, given by Mr Ruskell to ensure that the approach to that is as broad as the ambition might be in the cultural recovery strategy to make sure that things are joined up. I'm taking that down as a mental note and as an action point to make sure, because it's a very specific point in terms of urban and town regeneration and understanding culture in the broadest of senses. It's a very good example. On the second part of the question, I refer back to the much mentioned but I'm unable to talk about in greater detail cultural recovery strategy, which I think you will be keen to know how tangible the ambition of joined up government is in including organisations that may, on first reading, not be thought of as being, quote, cultural organisations. I don't know the answer to that question. I do know that I'm very keen to make it happen and I'm very keen for my colleagues to be thinking about it. That is something that I think we can come to. No doubt you will want as a committee to come back and say, is the cultural recovery and renewal strategy fit for purpose? Does it fulfil the ambitions that I shared before the committee and the priorities that you hold as individual members and collectively as a committee? I think that that will be a very worthwhile process when we get to the stage of agreeing it as government and then seeking the views of the likes of this committee. I have a local organisation that has been working for over 22 years with young people and they receive the bulk of their funding through the Youth Music Initiative to help do this. I was also convener of the Education and Skills Committee last session of the Parliament when we did the inquiry into music tuition in schools. Obviously, there's a link-up now with education. If we're offering more opportunities for young people to do music at school, is there going to be a review of how the Youth Music Initiative can support both the school and the third sector organisations that might be picking up some of that work outside school times? The first thing that I should declare an interest in all of this having attended Broughton High School, which is the specialist music school in Scotland's state system, and had the benefit of being a normal school pupil. I wasn't within the music unit as such, but because I was in and around people who were, it was a school that just in general terms had tremendous musical aspect to the education of pupils there, which then encouraged some of us, myself included, to play for the secondary schools orchestra. I should point out that I'm not claiming to have been a tremendous violin player at the back of the second violins, but it was great to be part of, but I'm just sharing with you my personal experience that I understand how transformational music in the broadest of senses is for young people, why the encouragement from musical tuition and the take-up of music tuition is of importance, and I'm delighted that the Scottish Government and its programme for government included commitments on this and that they have been taken forward and they are being taken forward. Another example where you're having this kind of cross-government approach, culture and education. You need to know that I am very keen on supporting this, and my officials know that I am very keen to understand how the commitments that the Scottish Government were elected on are delivered. I want to see it go from strength to strength. For take-up to be possible for kids everywhere and not just in places where one has the good fortune of where I happen to live, to have a school with a particularly strong musical tradition, there will be places where that's less the case and we have to make sure that not just because of good organisations like Sistema who will be delivering amongst the most deprived community, but there will be other communities who perhaps fall between both of those positions and we have to try and make sure that we are impacting on young people's lives as best as we can right across the country. I'd like to persist with the issue of mainstreaming. The committee heard some really interesting evidence from I think it was Museums Gallery Scotland about how museums help, encourage health, public health through various work that they do, as well as education perhaps more. Obviously, we've been talking about cross-portfolio working for a long time. It's been 10 years since the Christie commission was published. I suppose what I'm trying to drill down to is how does government really drive this agenda now. Great question. Here, I have to be absolutely clear, as somebody who has been in the Scottish Parliament only since May and a Cabinet Secretary for only a few short months, I do not have the personal insight of the 10-year horizon that Mr Cameron was talking about. I do know, though, that I spend probably more than half of my working day on teams' calls with colleagues across government discussing how government is joined up. I certainly get the impression that there's a genuine effort across government to try and make this work, whether that's in the economy. We are about to embark on this in the cultural sphere. All I can say is that I'm able to reflect on the fact that there is a sincere effort to try and make this work in other areas. I give you the assurance that I am very keen to make sure that this works. You will want to be very sure that it is working, and it's only when we're able to come back and you're able to interrogate the extent to which that's taking place that I can answer that question. What I can say to you is that it is my intention to try and make it work and perhaps bring the insights of a relative newcomer. Perhaps that's helpful. What I do know is that everybody I speak to seems to think that it's a tremendously good idea. If people weren't aware that there are benefits beyond a cultural and arts silo, then we would be in difficulty. The fact that people are recognising the health benefits, the educational benefits, what that might mean for the justice system in certain settings and so on, that makes me very optimistic that, if we can hardly do that, we would be in trouble. The awareness and the willingness to do something that we can really make that deliver. You will need to satisfy yourself that that is what is actually going to be able to happen once we have launched the strategy and when we're getting on with delivering it. Again, I go back to the symbiotic relationship with the committee and government. Maybe I'm hopelessly idealistic newcomer in this sense as well. You need to know that the work that you do does influence people like me and my civil service colleagues. The considerations that you make, because we have different kinds of time constraints and time limitations, for you to be able to take the thoughtful approach that you did recently with your focus group work, is absolutely invaluable. I just leave that thought back with you, convener and deputy convener. It's a way in which you can really influence ensuring that government delivers and I'm very keen to work with you on that as we jointly try to deliver something that is joined up. I thank you for that answer and I'm grateful for what you just said. It strikes me as something that we all share the ideal but never quite realise. Ultimately, how do we get a GP practice to prescribe a trip to a museum or a local theatre show? Whatever it might be, how do we get that to happen? It's a good kind of question and we could probably come up with a list of types of questions like that that a joined up approach could be measured against. I'm not trying to introduce a whole series of new metrics and I'm looking at my civil service colleagues here and the speed with which they're writing notes about me suggesting that we should do it in this way but the point that you make is a case in point. If people first off the cultural and arts world are to be encouraged to open up pathways for people to have the benefits of our cultural institutions, I suspect that some will be quicker than others to do that. To what extent does one have to pull and to what extent does one have to push for that to succeed? We are talking in the small sea sense of a cultural change in how we see culture. I can't honestly say that I know exactly how that's going to turn out. I do know that we don't have an alternative because if that is a benefit or encouraging kids in particular from deprived communities to learn that cultural institutions and cultural offering is for them as much as it is for anybody else, I reflect on one single statistic that I think Creative Scotland deduced from some of its research, which was that only 30 per cent of people know how to access information about cultural events, which is probably surprising for us who do go to things and we know where to look. If we take that at face value we have to accept that the disconnect with a significant part of society is profound. That's why the doctor prescribing or encouraging or the school that is able to help their kids go to places that they would never normally go and instill in them the sense that it's something worth going back to and encouraging going with their parents. We have to get all of that joined up. Like I said, there isn't an alternative. Again, it's an example of which good thinking on your part will help to encourage us to think about how it is that we're going to be able to deliver this across government. I move now to a completely different area, which is about the spread of funding across local authority areas. We received evidence from Creative Scotland a few weeks ago in which it emerged that there is a very disparate spread of funding. For instance, in terms of per capita funding, Edinburgh gets £51 per capita, Glasgow 34, Dundee 21, Aberdeen £4.67. The five areas with the lowest per capita funding are all the areas surrounding Edinburgh and Glasgow. There seems to be a huge variety. I appreciate Creative Scotland is an arm-length organisation and there is an issue about the amount of applications that are made and how many awards are then made thereafter. What can government do to encourage a greater range of applications and then funding awards across Scotland? First, there is a conceptual point in understanding the feedback that has been made in that question. I think that everybody here will appreciate that because a particular body is headquartered in Edinburgh for sake of argument, doesn't mean that all of its cultural work is undertaken in Edinburgh. We have cultural organisations that lay great store in the fact that they tour. That is not borne out in the headline figures of the dispersal of funds to particular organisations because it creates the impression, doesn't it, that all of the money is centred on Edinburgh, for example? That is not the case. I say that this is somebody who lived for a great length of time in the north of Scotland and was able to enjoy all kinds of national companies and others who were headquartered in Edinburgh or Glasgow performing in the universal hall in Finthorne or Elgin town hall. Those are things that I enjoyed. It underlines the point that we have to be a little bit careful in understanding this point about where is money dispersed to. Point 2. How do we encourage organisations that are currently not funded to seek funding? That goes back to something that we were discussing right at the start, doesn't it? I don't want to go around the houses again on that. One thing that you might be able to help us with is understand, is there a slew of organisations that would wish to be funded that are based somewhere else who are not being funded and for a particular reason? Is that so? If it is, I would like to know about it because I do not have the sense of a systemic underfunding of organisations based elsewhere, Observation 1 and Observation 2. Is it the case that some cultural organisations could perhaps do more work elsewhere in the country? Undeniably, that is probably the case. Mr Cameron will know that funding streams have been made available and are being dispersed right now for performers and people in the arts to be able to reach different parts of the country. I would encourage anybody who is listening to this who wants to do that to do that. Point 1 is a conceptual point. All money is not just spent in the local authorities where the organisations are headquartered. Two, I am not aware that there are a whole series of organisations that are not funded or underfunded who are based elsewhere. Thirdly, let's make sure that we are reaching the whole of the country. I don't know if there are colleagues sitting next to me who want anything to add. David, no? Thank you. Good. I've covered that. No. I've covered that. Thank you. Thank you for coming to see us today. I'd just like to go back to Donald Cameron's first question. I have a friend who is a retired GP who would love to have been able to prescribe hugging a tree or going to a cultural event, but there is also a requirement to change people's perception of what they get when they go to the GPs. In some respects, perhaps the pandemic has opened up some different doors. I had the privilege of attending an art show in Oben, which resulted from work that people had been doing throughout the pandemic. I think that sprouting up throughout Scotland there are these kind of ideas, and that is something that I hope that we as elected people in government can actually expand on. I'd like to go back to one of the things that you said in your opening statement to Cabinet Secretary about the screen industry in Scotland and the vibrancy of it. Clearly, there is a studio in Leith in Glasgow as well, and we also have the BBC across Scotland as well, and Channel 4. I'm interested to know how the budget is looking at supporting the skills there, but also locations across Scotland as well. Our wonderful scenery, for example. Well, thank you very much. I would be happy to do the entire evidence session on this particular area because I think it's something that we should all be very, very encouraged and excited about. The first point on funding—well, this is the remit of Screen Scotland that is funded through Creative Scotland, which is funded by the Scottish Government, and we lay great store on what is happening. We are, as an organisation that I am personally very, very enthused about the quality of the organisation—firstly Screen Scotland—and what it is currently doing, what it is able to do with the resources that it has, and what it is that we are currently and are planning to do. I've got a number in front of me that tells me that we have been funding production growth, so having more film and television projects undertaken in Scotland. The fund has been running since 2015, and £9.9 million has been funded from that. The estimated economic benefit to Scotland as a return is £140 million. If we want to understand the benefit of government helping to encourage this particular sector, it is massive. That's point one. Point two, studios were mentioned. We have gone from a position ten years ago where we literally didn't have a single one to having facilities in Edinburgh that were mentioned in Bath Road. We have them in West Lothian, which are being used for Oman too. We have facilities in Cumbernauld that are being used for Outlander. We have facilities in Glasgow that are at the BBC, and we are very pleased that that is remaining within the BBC structure. We have Kelvin Hall, where the Scottish Government has put a lot of money in and for very, very good reasons to be able to produce there. What is hugely encouraging about that is notwithstanding the fact that we now have these sites that are being used and are being booked back to back, we are having further interest and a demand for further facilities. The opportunity for this in Scotland is something that we absolutely need to grab with both hands. There are aspects to this that are perhaps less obvious than what we might read in the newspapers. We might read in the newspapers that we might see another big ticket film taking place in Scotland, and I'm looking forward to as much of that happening as possible, but understanding what happens below that and what Scottish Government and our agencies can do is going to be key in ensuring that the benefit of this development is realised as widely as it can be. In that context, it is around skills and training that we have in some respects the most exciting prize of all to make. The Scottish Government puts funding in through Screen Scotland and in through other funding routes to different skills training. Here's another example of where we need to be joined up as joined up as we can be in government. We have, for example, Screen Scotland doing what it's doing and skills being developed through them. I reflect on it because I had a conversation with the principle of Napier University about it this very week, a creative centre that Napier University has, which is developing skills that are mission critical for the screen sector. Then we have Edinburgh College, and this is the bit that we cannot overlook. This is really, really important. There are developing craft skills so that when productions come here we have people who are able to do the set building, for example. That means that you need brickies and plasterers who can work in a film environment. It is very well paid work, but you need people who have experience to work in that kind of situation to be able to do this. Now, add the good fortune to be able to visit Bath Road during the filming of The Rig. The set was incredible. It was huge. That's one of the advantages of the facilities. I mean, I was watching them, a helicopter landing indoors in a studio. I mean, it's amazing what they can do. But it was put to me that one of the reasons why they were able to do a production like that was they were able to use the workforce from the Lyceum Theatre that was not operating at the time because of Covid lockdown. Ok, so that in that sense it's a happy circumstance because the people who work in set design in the Lyceum were able to continue working. But what happens when the Lyceum is back up and working and the next production and ANSI boys at Bath Road? I'm sure they have great people who are doing this. But I'm just trying to illustrate that one of the things that we need to do in government and you can help in fostering and understanding that this industry, if we get this right, we're supporting more productions coming here. We're helping to provide the facilities to emerge out of market failure which we have had in the past. We're working with broadcasters, streaming services and other commissioners to bring more work here and we're doing what we need to do to provide people with the skills to be able to support that production. If we get all of that right, that's a virtuous circle. And yes, Scotland has amazing scenery that is a backdrop to films but the even bigger price for us as technology develops the way it is is it's not just, although there's plenty that we would wish Scotland to be the backdrop represented in films of course, it is the filming frankly of anything set anywhere that we are going to be able to do here. And that is a massive price for us as a cultural offering and then there's the additional point that I'd like to put a marker down on. We have exported our brightest and best in this industry for decades. And whether it's the talent that we all know, just think of all of those Scottish performers who are now based in New York or Los Angeles or London for that matter, but then there's all the people that you might actually not know, all of the directors and the producers and all of the people who work on the short shop floor, so to speak, who have gone where the work has taken them. We now have the prize of a full through life career opportunity based here. So sorry, I've spoken for quite a while about that, convener. I could speak longer about it, but I hope I'm giving you a flavour of the fact that I think this is something that is going to be transformational. It's a new string to our bow when we come to culture and the arts in Scotland and we should grab it with both hands. Anything that you find in your work which suggests that there are things that we should be doing more of or less of or in a different way, I'd be very happy to hear that. Thank you for that. I look forward to the sequel. As you know, I represent Argyllin Bute and it's thinking about getting some of the spend and the skills development just out with the central belt as well and looking at the colleges and universities there to support skills development. You're absolutely right. Everything from make-up to set design to floor management etc etc is all needed, the support. Also, I was very struck by a lot of the evidence that we took about the importance of culture out with the central belt as well and I know that Donald Cameron touched on that too. I was heartened to hear some of your comments with regards to that. I suppose just to underline the importance of small community groups, small museums and what they add to the community and also visitors to the areas and that shouldn't be forgotten in the Scottish Government's budgeting process. It's a point that's well made and well noted. I would just give one example of the fact that our cultural producers are not just based in our cities and I pray in aid the fact that one of the biggest movers and shakers behind Omens 2 is based in Skye as a good example of the fact that it is perfectly possible to be a talented writer or a director or many of the other skills that Jenny Minto has highlighted and can still work in this sector because we are a small country and that is one of the advantages that we have. One of the other things that comes into my mind when reflecting on this is that it underlines the importance of commissioning in Scotland. This is where the likes of Channel 4 having one of their commissioning hubs in Glasgow has great potential because it means having somebody on the ground that understands the independent sector in the case of Channel 4 because that's what they do. They commission from others to produce content for them. If you have people on the ground, yes, they are headquartered in Glasgow but they should and I know they do know and they are interested in the skills that there are throughout the country. That's why the importance of receiving commitments from in this case public service broadcasters, UK-based public service broadcasters, whether that's Channel 4 or BBC or others, to commission in Scotland is very important and I have been impressing on their chief executives that this is the case and this should be the case. Incidentally is one of the concerns that I have and I'm sure a number of you in this committee also have about the prospects for the future of Channel 4 because if Channel 4 is privatised in the way that is proposed changes the model under which it operates without any guarantees for the protection of the likes of the commissioning structure that we now for the first time have based in Scotland. We have the potential to lose the gains that I've been outlining and that's one of the key reasons why I really hope that the UK Government reconsiders. They've reconsidered before so hopefully they will understand now with points like this being made if one's wanting to make sure that different parts of the United Kingdom are seeing the benefits of screen and television and production and so on. One is wanting to quote, level up in a variety of places, doing so in a way that is going to see the cutting of that footprint in different parts of the UK will be very, very detrimental. I'm interested in what you're saying about those phenomenal opportunities to bring production to Scotland and I'm just thinking about the rest of your portfolio and the Scottish Government's aspiration to develop its footprint, its linkage out to the rest of the world, particularly new hubs that you're planning to set up. Does that feed directly into the work that Screen Scotland needs to do to reach out and to bring production in, as well as ensuring that the best of Scottish talent can move and take part in productions abroad as well? Absolutely. Let me start in a place that people might not have thought of. We could start in the United States. I'm not going to come back to the United States in a moment. I've been discussing with some members of the committee the likes of the Scottish Government's plans for an expansion of our network, which includes Copenhagen and Warsaw. Let me give you a really concrete example in this area where the likes of a direct presence in Copenhagen matters. You don't need to be the biggest fan of Scandi Noir to understand that in recent years one of the most successful broadcasters in the world to produce content has been DR, which is a Danish public broadcaster. What they have been able to do individually and in co-production, often with their Swedish and Norwegian neighbours, is to produce content, incidentally, in a language spoken by only five million people, which we've all been enjoying from Bown, my Danish pronunciation, but Bown and the Bridge and a variety of other series, which have been massive hits. There's a classic example of why I think, and notwithstanding all the other sensible reasons for us having a presence in the Nordic and Baltic regions, where we can learn from the best practice of a country that has been tremendously successful, what is it that they have been doing that has meant that a country the same size as Scotland, with a national broadcaster which we don't have in the same way, has been able to make commercially successful productions and export them. Number one place I want to learn from is Denmark, so having a presence in Copenhagen is a very, very good idea. Of course, it's much more than that, and having a presence in the United States, in the Scottish Government office in Washington DC, which works very closely with the SDI presence that we have in various other bits of the United States. In addition to that, Screen Scotland regularly has a presence in the United States, where it is dealing directly with people in the film industry about the changing landscape, if you want to call it that, of screen production in Scotland. On the basis that we have a permanent representation, we have a wider network, it's joined up with the Scottish Government, it's joined up with our agencies, and then there's an additional thought that fits in with my portfolio, which relates to our diaspora. Part of our diaspora includes some of the most successful people in film and television in the world. They just happen not to be based here, and we know we have great fortune in that, I pluck a name, something like Brian Cox, one week can be making a hit series in succession, for example, and the next week he can be filming something in Dundee for BBC Scotland, because he's personally committed to that. I want to make sure that people in our diaspora who work in this sector are fully aware of what is going on here, because many of them have moved and have semi-permanently moved somewhere else, and that's the life choices that they've made, they've had the good fortune to work in an industry that's taken them to LA or wherever it is. However, those are people who operate in a sector where they have great influence and are able to help to promote in their own way what we are doing here, and that's something else that's on my list. So, yes, the formal work, yes, having the greater footprint, yes, that is a key part of our endeavour of what it is that they will be able to add. And then it's using the networks of people who are part of the Scottish diaspora or Affinity Scots who play part of it. Sorry, just another thought on that. The number of people who have come to Scotland in recent years who have made films or made television series, who are not from here, who have gone back to wherever it is they've come from, the praise that they share with their colleagues that they go back to is immense. And we need to do everything that we can to capitalise on that goodwill that we see growing in the film and TV industry to get maximum effect in Scotland. It's massive upside at the moment and I would encourage you again to develop your interests in it. Thank you, Mr Golden. Thank you, convener. Just thinking around events organisations and theatres who are most dependent on earned income through in-person attendance, they've obviously been significantly impacted throughout the pandemic and it's great to see them being able to return to performances and I'm sure everyone will enjoy the Panto season. But my main question is, there is still a degree of natural uncertainty and a real weak appetite to take risk to book a show for next year and in their long term planning and I wonder how the Scottish Government could help to support them to make production bookings and assist with that long term planning. OK, so my first point to understand, Mr Golden was attending another committee at the beginnings of proceedings and is now your new member of the committee, I believe, so welcome to the committee, look forward to working with you. At the beginning I made a statement where I outlined the massive Scottish Government spending that has been undertaken, which in great measure is way beyond the funding levels that we've received in consequentials from the UK Government. So our ambition to try and put the funding in place to support recovery right across the cultural sector has been given and Mr Golden will understand this. There are a number of funding streams that are available and I do appreciate that there are different venues that are treated in different ways and so some may feel more uncertain than others, I totally understand that. Forgive me, I don't know if the point that I'm about to make is one that I made before or after he was able to take part in proceedings but I think one of the things that lies in our hands is trying to encourage the speediest recovery of the arts and culture scene as fast as possible and it does worry me. I've seen some organisations thinking that they won't get back to the financial position that they were put pre-pandemic for up to five years. Now, it seems to me that we should be doing as much as we can to minimise that time as much as possible. We have made funding streams available as those come to the end of their natural life. We have to think about the resources that we have, about whether there is any targeting that is required in specific areas. If Mr Golden has examples, I'm very keen to hear where, if there's any gap between the intention of funding streams and the delivery for particular outlets, I'm keen to hear that. One of the things that I'm very seized on is what is it that we can do that it can encourage maximum public take-up of the cultural offering that we have. So, whether that's the pantomime season or the Edinburgh International Festival, it matters not. What does matter is that people go and people feel that they're safe and that our cultural offering is able to bounce back. If there's anything—I noticed in his question as Mr Golden was asking specifically around booking, I'm not sure whether there's anything behind that that he wants to add, but I think anything that Government and Government agencies can do to encourage participation in and support off the cultural offering, I think is a large part of our way out of this. Government doesn't do culture. It is for us to help support people who do culture—do culture, if that makes sense. I'm very keen that we are as innovative as we can be to drive up cultural participation. That means more people in theatres, more people at events, more income and a quicker financial recovery. In the meantime, we are continuing to fund to a significant degree to help venues and organisations to find their feet again. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I'd like to explore another area just to pick up on partnership working and particularly around local authorities because we've looked at, if you like, creative Scotland funding on a geographical basis, but I wonder what your thoughts would be on having mandatory local authority culture reporting and publishing a strategy so that there's transparency. We can also see on a geographic basis which local authorities are proactively embracing culture to embed into communities. The first thing in reviewing some of the figures before I came to the committee, I observed that in general terms cultural spending by local authorities has remained, which I think is positive in my commendations to people in local government because I know they have a lot of demand on their budgets. There is always an opportunity for partnership working. I would put down one marker in this again having said what I said in a moment ago to Mr Golden about it. It's not for the Scottish Government to do culture, we support culture, we help culture, our cultural organisations are much closer to the front line. Having that arm's length separation is there for a reason. I'm sure Mr Golden would be the first to tell me that he wouldn't think it's a good idea for local government to be directed and to have their ability to make budget priorities and decisions themselves. I know that he was talking about publishing and having an understanding of. I definitely think that there's something in that. Of course we answer questions in the usual way about information that the Scottish Government holds. I'd need to defer to colleagues about the degree of understanding that we have on a council to council level that would be answered through partnership working and with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. That would be hugely valuable. I'm sure that a lot of that happens at present. Is there anything else that colleagues want to add on that point? The only thing to say is that we did meet with the cultural conveners earlier this year intending to meet more to find out what more we can do with local authorities. As the cabinet secretary said, local authorities do spend £577 million over 2021 on cultural activity, so it's something that they do take seriously. On the little yellow post-it note for us to take away in relation to our cultural recovery and renewal strategy, the point that Mr Golden makes is about co-operation. It would obviously be a good thing that we are thinking right across the Scottish Government on how culture and the arts is mainstreamed in all of our thinking. There's absolutely no reason why we wouldn't include that broader understanding or encourage that broader understanding to also involve local authorities who do have a delivery responsibility and deliver, as my colleague has just pointed out, a significant amount of money on culture. That's another little yellow post-it note from me and colleagues. Thank you, cabinet secretary. It's worth noting that, of course, the alleyways and local government are quite different across the country as well. Having previous experience of trying to drill down on those areas can be problematic. I think that I have a final supplementary from Ms Boyack. Thank you very much, convener. I missed the last few minutes, so I appreciate getting in. Just to add for the cabinet secretary's information, a few weeks ago, when we were taking evidence, we got a really interesting suggestion about how we support freelancers and making stronger links with schools and local communities. The suggestion was that it be good both in terms of access to culture but also in sustaining employment locally. You already mentioned your own experience in schools. That issue about skills and confidence and access to musicians and artists gives young people at schools really important. It's more just to add it to your conversation with colleagues over the next few weeks when you're discussing budget issues. I don't know if it's potentially even linked into the percent for art idea. Thanks very much for letting me back in, convener. I'm not expecting a lengthy answer today. No, I'm not going to give a lengthy answer to Sarah Boyack, but I think her point and her intervention is very well timed and is very well made. I speak as somebody who, amongst my circle of friends, I have at least one person who works in the cultural scene as a freelancer in the arts environment and delivers his work to younger people, to older people, in care settings, in other environments. I think that we need to make sure that what we are able to do that will ensure that freelancers are able to fully take part in the cultural recovery and renewal process is something that should definitely be part of our considerations. I should probably have declared an interest in that point that I wouldn't be making decisions like this to benefit any friend that I may have that's active in the scene. I say that all of that with a smile on my face, but I think that the point in general is well made and we want to make sure. One of the experiences that we had, particularly at the beginning of the Covid experience, was people who were freelancers finding out that they were not covered in one way or another with Government support measures. That is another reason why we need to take that away and make sure that we are thinking as well as we can about them and what they do and what it is that they offer. I think that Mr Ruskell has one very final small question. Last word. I think that a lot of what you've discussed with us this morning, Cabinet Secretary, has been about wellbeing and you've heard obviously a lot of comments from members as well on that. I guess I'm interested for the future as to how Government will reflect on culture's contribution towards a wellbeing economy and whether that's through the wellbeing bill, whether it's through consideration of future generations commissioner, for example. I mean, I've been very struck by the work of the Welsh future generations commissioner in relation to the Welsh language. Perhaps that's for consideration and further reflection, but any early thoughts you have around those two pieces of work that the Scottish Government has committed to looking at? Well, it has to be committed to all of them, surely. If our ambition is to be joined up, if our ambition is to mainstream thinking about culture and the arts and the way that it impacts across Government, it should really form consideration in all of the work that we do. And are we making the most of that and are we encouraging an understanding of that? There was, I mean, just to finish off a thought and not just because it's a member of the Green Party that's asking the question, there was a sort of slightly tongue-in-cheek description of prescribing the culture and the arts as hugging trees. And I know that that was meant humorously and was not meant as a serious point, but I just reflect on the fact that if we were discussing culture and the arts in relation to health 10, 15, 20 years ago, it would have seemed like a rather odd or out-of-place suggestion. It is now not, thank goodness, and that's why I know that the comment was being made humorously around the issue of the health benefits of culture and the arts. But it just makes the point, I think we are ready as a culture, all of us, regardless of our different politics, to understand that this does play an important role. And I think we're just at the start of this parliamentary session. I think this will probably be the parliamentary session that really does begin to make this happen. And that encourages and enthuses me as I'm sure it does you. I think that concludes questions this morning, cabinet secretary. Thank you very much for your attendance and to Mr Sears and Ms Sizeland for their attendance this morning. We'll now move it into private session.