 Good morning and welcome to the 16th meeting in 2018 of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee. I would like to remind members and the public to turn off mobile phones and any members using electronic devices to access committee papers should please ensure that they are turned to silent. Today we hold our final evidence session on the committee's inquiry into Scotland's screen sector. We will first hear from Creative Scotland and then we will hear from the Cabinet Secretary. Over the course of nine evidence sessions, we have heard from over 50 witnesses and have already published our interim report, a bigger picture. Following today's session, the committee will publish its final report in the run-up to the summer recess. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone, the very many people who have contributed to the committee's inquiry. I would now like to welcome our first panel of witnesses. We have Ian Munro, the deputy chief executive of Creative Scotland, Scott Donaldson, the head of film education and the acting director for film and Barclay Price, who is a board member of Creative Scotland. I would like to maybe start by talking about the timescales for the establishment of the screen unit. It was originally planned for December last year, and then that timescale moved back to April this year. We are still waiting for the screen unit. I wonder if you could update the committee on where we are going to see the screen unit. The business case that was made to ministers to get the green light for the screen unit was given at the end of last year, and we have moved since then to build towards it. I think that I said in the last evidence session that it was never going to be possible to be fully in place, fully formed and up and running in that time frame. What we are doing is incrementally building the screen unit, rolling it out and building momentum. We should recognise that we are two months into that process of a five-year route map and plan for the screen unit to transform the industry. We recognise that everybody is keen to see and feels like they have been waiting for some time to see a step change delivered, but I can give assurance that we are absolutely committed to making sure that we are moving this as fast and appropriately as we can. What was interesting was a meeting with the screen sector leadership group in March of this year, which reinforced a message to us to say, take the time to make sure that you get this right, because it is so important. We hear what they say, respect what they say, but are committed to rolling it out incrementally, as I say, and we have already got the bowl rolling on several fronts to build that process. The critical thing that they said to us was that the leadership at the head of the screen unit is fundamentally important to be the identifiable moment when the screen unit launches at where it comes into existence. However, there are many things that I am sure we will get into where I can talk more about what we are actually doing to build the screen unit now. One of the key things that the industry had asked for, even in the last Parliament, with the economy committee's inquiry, was a single front door, a single point of access or portal. That was something that was in the screen sector leadership group as well. We were told that it was being worked on. When are we going to see a portal, a single point of access for the industry, to access screen support? That is very much in train. It will be part of that moment when the executive director post is announced and there is a form of launch of the screen unit. Phase 1 of that website build, which acts as the single front door, is in place. What we are doing at the moment is working on phase 2 to populate all of that up and ensure that there is clarity of the content, but also the access through that single front door that will join us as partners up behind. One of the new developments that we have agreed, again coming out of a screen committee at the beginning of May, which involves external representatives on that committee, is to move beyond an MOU between the partners. I know that the committee had interest in the MOU previously. To better describe the nature roles and responsibilities of the individual partners, how that collective working will manifest itself and be clear about targets for the organisation and the different outputs and outcomes that can be expected. That is something that we will publish. It will go way beyond an MOU and better be able to describe how the single front door works behind the scenes. That is what people can hold us to. There is not going to be a memorandum of understanding between the different organisations that we discussed at the last time that you were here. If I could speak to that as I chair the screen committee, we looked at this and we felt that the actual fact that, for the first time, we brought all the agencies together into this one working group was in itself a sort of MOU that, in a way, we have all committed. The key thing was more the business plan so that we could confirm the actions that each of the agencies would be taking, which has been a sort of issue in the past, a sort of uncertainty about what each agency was doing. That business plan with actions and outcomes would, to an extent, be the MOU. Every party would be signing up to action, whereas an MOU that we felt that we might still develop in due course might be a rather overarching document that did not really give us the outcomes that I know we are all looking for. It seems a bit strange that the memorandum of an understanding to make sure that everybody was on board up until now has been an absolutely critical part of your plan for this screen unit. Just to sort of abandon it seems a bit strange. Sorry, we have not abandoned it, but we felt that, by putting the business plan together, it would be a better case of seeing what that MOU might look like. At the moment, we are still much further forward to understanding what each party is going to do within the new development. If an MOU is felt essential, we will put that together. We just felt that the business plan was more about action, which we think the screen sector wants to see as the actions are important to them. What the screen sector leadership group identified very clearly was fragmentation in terms of people who are responsible for screening in terms of the public sector. There were concerns about the Scottish Enterprise role, which I think that other members will come on to. That was why we needed a memorandum of understanding to make sure that everyone was committed because of previous problems with getting Scottish Enterprise at the table and also in terms of funding. I think that the thing that has changed is that each agency has within its letter of guidance from its minister clear guidance, which has not been there in the past. I take the point about Scottish Enterprise. I know that there have been concerns in the past, but, given that we now have two screen sector representatives on the screen committee, their view was that the business plan was the real way forward. That way, we would see what each agency, including Scottish Enterprise, was committing to. We were able to judge that they were delivering on that. I think that a lot of people listening to this will be a bit concerned because we have already seen the timescale pushed back. What was the original plan, a memorandum of understanding has been replaced with a business plan? When are we going to see that business plan? It is under development at the moment. There will be an update through the screen committee at the beginning of June. I will go back briefly. We need to recognise that all the public sector partners have committed and are part of that collaborative proposal, which is giving birth to the screen unit. Everybody is already an integral part of that, and we will be held, as we are as Creative Scotland, held to account on that. What we are doing is setting out much more clearly going beyond an MOU. The business plan will contain those elements of what an MOU would represent, but the business plan will set out in much more clarity and detail individual responsibilities for each of the agencies involved. What we individually and collectively are setting out to deliver will be clearly described, and people can hold the individual agencies. Can we discuss the business plan in June? When are we going to see the business plan? When are we going to see the portal, the single front door? If you could just be a bit more specific about when we are going to see it. It is going to be published in the summer. It is being worked on at the moment with the individual agencies involved. The single front door, as I said, will be time to coincide with the executive director being in post until that process is concluded. The exact timing of that, we cannot be certain of, but we are provisionally working to the summer period for that. Have you started interviewing for the executive director? I am pleased to say that there was considerable interest in the executive director role. We had inquiries from across Scotland, the UK and internationally, and more than 100 serious conversations and approaches about that. We had 40 applications. The panel met yesterday to shortlist, and we have shortlisted six very strong candidates and the interviews that we have taken place in June. So you expect to have an appointment by, say, the end of June, beginning of July, an announcement? Again, depending on who the successful candidate is and the circumstances of their employment and so on, we will need to negotiate all of that, but as soon as we are able to, beyond the interview process in June, we will want to make that announcement. Why did you choose to have an executive director of Screen and Creative Enterprise? I think that a lot of people would have thought that there was a screen unit, so we needed somebody to head up the screen unit, and that would be their focus. However, instead of choosing to go down the road of a director of Screen and Creative Enterprise, I have heard some people in the industry question the wisdom of that. I think that we have felt that one of the big changes of this extra money into Creative Scotland is taking forward Creative Scotland to what, when I joined the boat eight years ago, was seen as what it would develop into. It is a very different structure that would, in a sense, be dealing with both the cultural and the commercial aspects. As it has done, because in other sectors like music, et cetera, and film and literature, that is part of its landscape, we felt that this post, which in a sense would bring to us high-level commercial skills, could be well used to help us to develop the slightly underdeveloped area of creative industries, which is another part of Creative Scotland's area. The first focus, which is certainly clear from a board perspective, is that the first six months, et cetera, would be very much focused on screen, so that we would get the screen unit up and running properly, so that their skills could be used to help to develop other areas of the creative industries, because screen and creative industries, gaming, et cetera, would also emerge more and more in the new current landscape. We felt that role could help across the board of Creative Scotland and bring some ideas about commercial improvement into some of the other art form areas. A lot of people would have thought that screen is enough on its own. If you want to send out a strong message about the screen unit, and that being our completely new development and a new focus on screen, you should have had someone who was entirely focused on screen to head up the unit, because it is a lack of clarity when you have this other role for them. I think that the important thing to reassure the committee and reassure the sector is that the people that we looked at in the shortlist all come from that sector, so that is the skills that we are looking for. However, we think that they can bring that expertise into the wider creative Scotland area. Thank you, convener. The panel will be aware that the committee issued an interim report earlier this month. We felt that it was important to issue the interim report, because there were key concerns that had come up during the course of the inquiry, and we felt that it was important to give our views on the screen unit at an early stage. In that report, we said that it has become clear to us that the proposal for the screen unit will not deliver the step change and support that the screen sector in Scotland needs. We also said that the screen unit proposal is a public sector, not a screen sector solution. Have Creative Scotland had a chance to look at our comments so far and what is your response to the proposal that we are not convinced that a screen unit sitting within Creative Scotland is the best way forward here and that we need to move towards an independent unit? Yes, we have read the report and its recommendations with interest. We recognise and respect that the call for a separate screen agency is not necessarily a new one. It has been there through Creative Scotland's existence. The wider response to that recommendation is obviously a matter for the Scottish Government. What it can say is that Creative Scotland, the way that it is constituted, the way that it is constructed and the way that we are operating, is very much that we hold the lead responsibility for screen. We are serious about that, we are committed to that and indeed we are committed to ensuring that we deliver against, with our partners and the industry, the screen unit delivery plan. That is our focus, that is what we have been charged with by the Scottish Government, and we will remain committed to achieving that. As I said before, it is a five-year plan. We want to see that step change and we are putting in place the mechanisms to ensure that we are able to deliver that. That is what people can judge us on. As I mentioned, we are two months into that five-year, five-year plan. I appreciate that people are impatient, but we are very committed to making sure that that happens to the best effect. Having worked both inside and outside arts agencies for 40 years, there have been lots of moments about single agencies or combined agencies. As a culture committee, one of the things that you might want to consider is that I was very committed to the creation of Creative Scotland, having worked in the arts council. I saw that bringing the two together could give a more strategic hold to the whole cultural sector. Other sectors have also, in the past, expressed interests to have their own agencies. Literature, within the past few years, has been calling for their own agency. My concern is that, if we move back to a previous model of different agencies, each having to have their own levels of administration, there is a possibility that other sectors—literature, music, which is also a commercial and cultural sector—could equally bring forward their claims, which could, in a sense, undermine the cultural strategic approach that I think the Government has been moving forward with. I believe that, as a board member, Creative Scotland has delivered well and successfully for the cultural aspect of film, which was what its role was. I believe that the screen unit within Creative Scotland can deliver well for the new need of the commercial factor. The evidence is yet—I can see why lots of people on the screen would like their own unit, but I believe that it has the advantage of being a combined strategic approach. However, so far, the argument for a strategic approach that is put on screen within Creative Scotland has seen Scotland in the past 10 years fall behind in terms of UK competitiveness, development of film studios in Manchester and Northern Ireland has moved ahead of us in terms of its production and its investment. It is recognised that Scotland could be doing better than it is. The experience of how screen has been managed in the past 10 years does not convince us that the model that is going forward is the right model. One of the key areas in that is governance. We have concerns—I have been raised the issue of the title that has been given—the Executive Director of Screen and Creative Enterprises, and I have not heard the explanation this morning. I share the concerns that adding creative industries into that portfolio could be a mistake. We have heard clear evidence that we need strong leadership and a focus on screen. The governance arrangements, where the director ultimately reports to the board of Creative Scotland, we have concerns that the sector will not be fleet of foot enough, it will not be agile enough, it will not be able to make decisions. I am not sure that the process is right, and it seems that the staff for this recruitment, this post, has already been recruited. Someone is expected to come in, but they seem to have very little autonomy or decision making about how the unit will operate and how decisions are made. I think that there are a number of points there that I can respond to. I want to go back to the original point about the sector's impatience and frustration about the work to date. I can understand that frustration, but I think that it would do a disservice to the very committed and expert staff within Creative Scotland as a whole, but specifically here in relation to screen, who are absolutely working hard to make sure that they are delivering for the industry. It is not to question the staff. One of the areas that have been mentioned is about fragmentation, so there has always been the tension between Scottish Enterprise and Creative Scotland about who actually takes the lead on that. I recognise that the staff have worked hard, but we feel that they are being restricted by the arrangement that they have to work. There is a possibility that they are being restricted by the arrangement that they have to work with. I do not think that the screen unit solves that problem. The partnership approach is new, and yes, there is skepticism around it. I think that we want to prove that it can work. Whatever the future may hold around calls for ongoing calls for a separate screen agency, that is the model that has been set up to address the concerns that have been made. We are serious about it. The cabinet secretary has sent us a question about who decided that model, because the cabinet secretary announced the screen unit and I understand that it was approved by the cabinet secretary, but was it Creative Scotland that designed the model, or was it, I assume, Creative Scotland and the cabinet secretary approved it? No, it was done through a collaboration across the public agencies with the Scottish Government. It was borne out of that collective conversation and recognition that there were challenges and issues that continued to be put forward and the frustrations and concerns that everybody wanted to find new and different ways of working that are more effective. I am just recording that there are foundations there to be built from, and we should recognise that however imperfect people see that model, it is still, to this point, delivered a 200 per cent increase in the production spend in Scotland. We know, recognise and believe and want to chase down the potential for much more that is part of that transformation set out in the screen unit plan. I take your point. There has been frustration about Scottish Enterprise's role in the past, which has been clearly articulated, and I see a step change in the conversations that we have been having at the screen sub-committee with Scottish Enterprise and other agencies. That issue, in a sense, would be the same whether there is a separate unit or it is within Creative Scotland. Getting the agencies to all deliver properly and effectively together is something that will be key to taking the sector forward. I do not disagree that there have been problems in the past, but I believe that even with the unit within Creative Scotland, that could still be moved forward. If I may also come back on the point about governance, and there may be further conversation about that, but just to reinforce the point that hear what is said about the scope of the job description for the executive director, I want to give assurance again that it is absolutely focused on delivery of the screen unit, the leadership there, and as Berkley said, the candidates that are coming forward are from that background. The board position was that there is an opportunity to add value within that role to the benefit of the wider creative industries, but not to be distracted by it. The role will be singularly focused and charged on delivering the screen unit, certainly in the very first instance, but where there are opportunities to build on that in the wider creative industries and draw the skills and expertise into those areas. For the benefit of the wider work that we do, that is what the role will be brought in to do. We have supplementaries from Richard Lockhead and Tavish Scott, if we could be as succinct as possible. Richard Lockhead. It is just to pick up on the frustration that has been expressed by the committee looking at this issue in that we feel that the film and screen sectors are at a major crossroads at the moment. There are literally billions of pounds being budgeted by companies around the world to spend film and screen, and we want Scotland to have a bigger slice of that. It is quite clear from what Claire Baker said that we have not been doing that over the last few years compared to some other countries. Our concern is that there are various layers and the lack of direct focus, potentially with a screen unit in Creative Scotland, as opposed to a standalone agency. Do you understand our concerns when we hear that there is not going to be an MOU, for instance, that the executive directors are not going to be wholly focused on screening film but also going to have some other responsibilities? Is it not a case that the focus is going to be diluted for capturing at this important moment in time the great potential for Scotland for film and screen? I really believe that the opportunities will be captured. I think that, in the last eight years, there has been terrific work done in film. Some of the barriers that we all know, the lack of a film studio, which has been other reasons for that, that is difficult in making that happen, but we are confident that something is quite close to fruition. I do not think that the MOU—the important thing is that everybody is working together through a clear plan. I really believe that the board and the senior team in Creative Scotland recognise the need to give the new post and its team full backing to take that opportunity forward. The fact that, when bringing Outlander into Scotland was done with the Creative Scotland team at the time, with the new resources, staff and the new £10 million, I really believe that we can motor that forward. I do not think that the structure is as important as the team of people that we have working on it. I will hear what is being said. The two things that I want to return to are the business of the MOU. We are not dismissing the MOU at all. We recognise its importance. What we want to do is not put in what could be perceived as a superficial MOU partnership agreement across the public sector bodies but do something that is deeper and more meaningful in the form of a business plan that sets out with much more clarity, more layers of the roles, responsibilities and expectations than simple MOUs would achieve. Can I just express what is at heart of my concern with this? If you have a collaboration in a partnership over the future filming in Scotland and you sit round the table, for instance, in Scottish Enterprise, you have an agreement that is really essential to move quickly to capture some opportunities arising. Scottish Enterprise and every other agency around that table has to go back to their bosses, then it has to be processed within those organisations and at some point they will come back to the partnership and they will give a decision. Meanwhile, months go by, the answer may not be the answer that you are looking for. Of course, the bosses have to go back and speak to other priorities and other issues to deal with. That situation, we cannot really see being addressed by your plans in terms of speeding things up and giving extra focus and quick decision making. That would be as true if you had a separate screen unit? If they had to negotiate with Scottish Enterprise, it would be the same. If they had to negotiate with Scottish Enterprise, it would be the same. I just got to agree with Richard Scott's question, but Mr Monroe, can I just take you back to the earlier point that you made at the start about the business plan being presented to the ministers? That was presented in the tail end of last year 2017. You have talked about the five-year route map for want of a better expression. That was very much part of that submission to ministers at that time. That is what we published. It was called the collaborative proposal. It is a technical document that was submitted to ministers, but we published it on the website. Sure. Therefore, by definition, the Government signed off on that five-year approach and the fact that the screen unit, as you have described, will be part of Creative Scotland. That was a strategic approach. Did they also sign off on your letters that are helpful in understanding the governance arrangements? They also presumably signed off on a board on a screen committee. Mr Price, you have been very open about that. Of which, seven of the members are public sector, Richard Scott's question, and there are only two industry representatives on that board, but there are only two industry representatives on that board. There are three industry representatives on that board. Creative Scotland is charged as accountable for the leadership and delivery of the screen unit to ministers, so it is in the lead seat, and that is where the board has responsibility. I understand that. Is that balance right, is the question, between industry people and all the organisations that Richard Hockhead was asking about? Barclay might want to come in on this as chair of that sub-committee. Ultimately, because our board, Creative Scotland, has that accountability to ministers, it is constructed with that in mind. It is a new model. We recognise that, and we do recognise the point that Richard Hockhead is making about the route back into those partner agencies, governance arrangements and so on. I have said before that we will want to keep that under review, because we want to make sure that the governance arrangements are both effective, but not a hindrance to deliver the five-year plan. It will be kept under review to understand how, if it needs to shift and reshape into the future to ensure that that is in place effectively, then we will do that. You will be very alive to the point that the committee heard in evidence that industry said time and time again that we would like to see more people who are in the industry on that governing committee. I think—sorry, Barclay—just one final point first. The three industry representatives are there—John McCormack, David Strachan and Gillian Burry—very senior, very respected industry representatives. They met the screen committee for the first time at the beginning of May, and they have given them very positive feedback about their confidence moving forward, based on the arrangements at the moment that are giving them confidence about the future, and that they will continue to play an active role in the governance arrangements that are in place. I do not disagree with you. I think that it is a new model. What is missing is me being chair, who does not have a huge amount of screen experience, but the Government is recruiting three new members to the board, all of whom will come from the screen and film sector, and their expertise will be added into that committee. We have had a period when our screen registration on the board, for a number of reasons, has been limited, but those new appointments will feed into that. The model of the committee is a new model, having the public agencies there. A critical role is to hold each of us to account, to have an area where we are all in the same room, having to sign up and agree, and to try and speed some of that past delays that have happened. I hope that the screen sector will recognise that the new appointments to the board give more expertise into the whole board, and that they will also be fed into the screen committee. However, if more representation from the sector is required, we will look to bring them on board. We heard a number of occasions, particularly from smaller companies in the screen sector, that fragmentation meant huge difficulties for them, particularly in access to financial support. It came from a number of different directions. They needed to present themselves in a number of different ways, depending on that. If you are a company of half a dozen people to present yourself in more than half a dozen different ways, it becomes a challenge at an issue of capacity and of knowledge of relationship building, etc. Are you at a point yet where you are able to explain to us how the screen unit will simplify that process and reduce that fragmentation to support particularly the smaller companies in the business? Yes, there is an absolute recognition of that and a commitment to address it. I am sorry, but there is a very live pilot project at the moment called Focus, which is a joint initiative between Scottish Enterprise and ourselves. It is running. I think that there are 28 companies that were about to be announced last year, of the kind that you are describing. We have invested in the ability for them to access the business development support that they are looking for through one single front door and one model. As I say, it is very much a pilot and it is half million pounds. We will be evaluating that to understand how we may be able to scale that up, assuming that it works effectively, in order to be absolutely one of those kind of singular opportunities to address the point that is being made. What is the timescale for the pilot completing and being evaluated? I do not know that information. I am sorry, but I can find out and certainly get back to you. That would be useful for us. The fragmentation point is interesting, because a different kind of fragmentation could happen if there was a separate screen unit. In the past, I recall when I worked at the Arts Council and Scottish Greenwell, we had a number of issues to do with arts venues, arts centres such as Edencourt, Dundee, which had cinemas as a major part. There were some issues about which agency was responsible for those arts centres, so fragmentation could happen in other ways. One of the reasons for setting up Creative Scotland, and I think that it has been very successful from that point of view, was to ensure a one-stop for the whole cultural sector, including, for example, visual artists who work in screen, which, again, used to cause some problems in the past where they were not sure whether they were to go to Scottish Green or go to the Arts Council. Fragmentation can happen in other ways when there are different agencies, as we have already seen with the agencies who have all had a responsibility for screen. I absolutely accept that that is a risk. The issue is that we have now collected a considerable amount of evidence of the fragmentation that has happened in reality as a result of the current set-up and the dissatisfaction with that and the relationship with those agencies. Just to turn briefly to issues of inward investment, I realise that you are not yet in a position where you are able to completely lay out the screen units plan of operation. That is a challenge for us to complete the process. If we are looking at an issue such as inward investment, if I were looking to set up a production in Georgia in the US, its state agencies would be falling over themselves to offer location scouting support, to offer connections with local production, post-production companies, etc. Is there a plan in place? Is there something that we would be able to scrutinise about the screen units intentions to support inward investment? Yes, there will be more laid out in detail through the work to come, the single front door website, business plan and so on. However, I want to record currently what goes on and it absolutely is proactive in the regard that you are referring to. Our screen commission active internationally, most recently we had 20 top US executives across—we took them on a—it is called a fam trip—involves going right across the geography of Scotland, showing our locations as attractive. We have been in Cannes most recently actively promoting Scotland through our screen commission work. Scot may have more to add. We have production growth fund in place, which is live and built up over recent years. In the last three years, there have been £3.7 million invested through production growth fund, which is about inward investment. Based on the calculations so far on the productions that have been supported there, the multiplier effect of that means that £3.7 million public sector investment is going to generate £60 million worth of inward investment into Scotland through those 13 productions that have been funded today. That is one of the new enhanced strands of funding that we have put in place at the beginning of the screen unit's life. We are continuing to build on what is already in place, and we will do more of that. I just want to record my esteem for my colleagues in the screen commission team who do all of the things that you are asking about and are extremely proactive in markets around the world—in Toronto, Berlin, Cannes and, as Ian said, hosted the six top-screen executives here and organised a dinner that was hosted by the cabinet secretary to show the political will that is behind our development of screen business. On that last point, you mentioned about Cannes, the 20 USXX coming over the £3.7 million production growth fund. How much support will there actually be for domestic talent to encourage them to invest in them so that our sector can actually become more robust in the future that is not going to be reliant upon that huge inward investment? Absolutely. It is another aspect of what we offer and are keen to see development and support. There is a £4 million film content and development fund, which is absolutely about supporting Indigenous talent. We should also recognise that production growth fund inward investment also helps to strengthen opportunities for the Indigenous industry here as well. There are elements in place, and we absolutely want to ensure that we are focused on the Indigenous sector as much as anything. I do not know if anyone else wants to comment. As Ian said, there is a film development and production fund of £4 million. There will be forthcoming a television-focused fund, content development and production fund of £3 million. Besides those development and production funds, we have and will be expanding our development of skills and talent. There are a range of supports that we have for Indigenous growth. Your question is well made. What we need to do over the next five years is build sustainable businesses and sustainable production over the next five years. The majority of our funds are aimed at that. Does that mean that you will need to take a chance on some new people coming through the sector as compared to being potential risk averse as has been one of the allegations in the past? It is our role to build talent at every level, and that means taking risks. We do that, and we have done that, and we will continue to do that. The board has a risk register. One of the areas that we have discussed quite deeply is how much risk did we wish to take in the cultural field in decisions. I think that one can sometimes see from the press coverage on some of the decisions that Creative Scotland makes that we are far from risk averse when it comes to supporting creative talent. That is the role of Creative Scotland to take risks on new talent and new artistic ideas. I want to ask a question about the studio. You mentioned taking the USXX around, and notwithstanding the Pentland studio situation, on the studio capacity that we have, there clearly seems to be more demand to have something else. Are you looking at any other locations to try to promote to get some further investment into the studio capacity? The studio absolutely for everybody is a top priority. It has laid out as one of the key ingredients to enable a step change for the industry. Currently, through our screen commission principally, we promote the studio facilities that are available that are in place, such as Ward Park, Pentland and so on. We have been doing some considerable work to deliver against the aspiration and the objective set out within the screen unit plan for an identifiable studio for Scotland. What is clear, especially reinforced through recent conversations with Pentland, is that the scope for Scotland to attract and sustain business within the industry here, those opportunities are substantial and we want to chase that. It means that several studio opportunities in Scotland can be in place in order to enable that to happen. What we are doing at the moment is—we are very close to this—we are quite advanced in terms of a business case that we will be putting to ministers for a studio proposition. That is in addition to Ward Park, Pentland and indeed Pyramid, so on. I cannot say any more about it because clearly there are business sensitivities and commercial considerations there, but we are very close to making that case, to get agreement to move forward. One of the key challenges that we know has been raised and we recognise that because we have had to work our way through it is around state aid and we recognise and we have researched what other countries have done that have been held up as models. So what we have been doing is taking very close work together as the screen partners, principally with Scottish Enterprise, but also with specialist advice from the Scottish Government's state aid unit. Indeed, we have taken expert specialist legal advice from Brussels. We are doing our best to work that through to find a model in a business case that enables that issue to be addressed. As I said, we are quite advanced in that process and we will be hopefully, shortly, putting that business case into ministers and we will have further to send it, of course. If I could just say it, I completely accept the frustration about the film studio situation. One of the difficulties for the board of Greater Scotland has been a huge amount of work that has been going on, state aid has been one of the big issues, which one has not always been able to, in a sense, talk about and put out there, but I am confident that this proposal that we have got is going to see something happen very soon. I would assume that, with Pentland being in the east coast, Warpark and Central Scotland, then this other potential would be somewhere over in the west coast, and we are proud to be a great location for that. Ross Greer has a supplementary question on the infrastructure. Thanks, convener. In what you have revealed into that, you have partly answered that. Concern that I have come across a number of times from folk in the industry is that there is a fear that this attempt to grow the screen sector in Scotland is too dependent on a studio in existence at Pentland, which might not for some time come about, given that there is still a tenant farmer on that site who is not willing to move, and there is almost certainly going to be protracted legal action there. Do you understand the concern from a number of folk in the industry that too much is being placed on the potential of the site at Pentland? Yes, I have heard the points that have been made, too. Our recent meeting with Pentland, and there is further follow-up that we will be doing, gave us assurance that there is a serious proposition there, notwithstanding that there is a legal matter that they are dealing with, but on the basis that that can be resolved. They are confident that they have the investors lined up to enable the first phase of that to proceed. We accept that and applaud that phase value, and we will continue to work with them to see how we can best support that in due course. That is not just because they are not looking for capital investment, which is where the state aid issue principally comes in, but of course all the other tools at our disposal around incentives and so on is something that we can engage them with. Through that conversation, it was clear and supported the fact that Scotland can sustain more. Our business modelling is beyond Pentland to the creation of another studio. It would not be in direct competition. The offer would be slightly different, and it would enable us to ensure that we are getting coverage across the market when you take into account other studios such as Word Park, Pyramids and other building and pop-up space, as I said, which we are actively promoting at the moment anyway. Witnesses already gave us indications that there was real concern about the lack of access and content, especially in rural areas, and that was with exhibition and cinema. What is the role of the unit and how will that screen unit itself help to ensure that we have more access? It is an absolutely central part of the whole pipeline of the offer currently, as well as with the screen unit. I would like to recognise that, as part of the equation here, what we do through our regular funding is support a number of organisations on a regular basis to be part of that cinema infrastructure, where there is public engagement and exhibition opportunities. That is right across the geography of Scotland, and it is from Moreill in Shetland, Eden Court in Inverness to Glasgow Film and the Film House in Edinburgh, for example, and DCA and others. However, there are other aspects to this, where we have other funds available that are about supporting that wider network, and Scotland may want to see more about Film Hub Scotland as well. The increased funding available to us through the screen unit has enabled us to increase our support for Film Hub Scotland, which is a partnership with the British Film Institute and is responsible for audience development across Scotland. It has around, I think, 120 member organisations, and they are literally around Scotland. We are also doing other things, such as researching the potential for community cinema and other activities that could increase access to cinema in Scotland. When you are looking at increasing that access, what are you thinking about with the skills process? In some of those remote areas, individuals and organisations may not have the skillset, but it is ensuring that they have that skillset that they can expand and develop, and without that skillset it is very difficult sometimes for them to capture that process and go into that market. How are you tackling that? Sure. The skills and talent strategy will need to address that and will address that. The research that I mentioned is partly aimed at looking at community cinema and the skills and infrastructure that those would need in order to develop and establish their services more firmly. The funding that is required to make that dream become a reality? We have an additional half a million for the skills and talent strategy. I see no reason why we cannot use some of that for supporting that skills development in those sectors. We are asking on one hand to do all of what you have just described and, on the other hand, we are asking you to make Scotland the centre of the universe when it comes to attracting film. That is a huge range of responsibilities for a small team of people. As much as I would say, we attempt to do it across other art forms. I think that we have in partnership with the art forms ensured that to happen. Visual arts is an example. Visual arts is now internationally renowned. Are we asking you to do too much here and not focus on what is the most economically important thing for us to be asking you to do? I feel confident that we can deliver what is set out in that blueprint. Is it overstretching us? Time will tell, but we are setting up the unit to have the necessary ingredients to enable that to be delivered. We can be judged on progress and due course, but what we recognise as absolutely necessary is the full breadth of spectrum, which is everything from Indigenous production strength, audiences, skills and talent development, inward investment opportunities, the studio and so on. We have got the different tools lining up now to enable all of that to move forward and we are committed to making that happen to best effect, but ultimately we will see. We are scaling up on human resources as well as financial resources, and the skills and expertise to enable us to achieve that. On that point, I also wanted to connect it back to Claire Baker's point earlier about the executive director coming in at a point where things may be locked down. We are scaling up. We have concluded a recruitment on four new specialist officers, three screen officers and one screen commission officer, and we are contracting on that at the moment. The way that we are doing that is to put in place those arrangements to ensure that the executive director coming in can reshape that as necessary to best suit the executive director's own vision about how best to organise the team and the support structures to enable that to happen. I think that the board recognises that that is taking in quite an extra chunk of delivery, and there has been a lot of discussion about that. When the proposal came from minister, that was one of our internal discussions. I understand why the film sector has been frustrated in the past, and I think that we believe that we have in place the structure that will deliver what they wish. What concerns me is that, at this point, when we have in a sense got this all already in place but more ready to go, disrupting that with sudden major structural change, which, in a sense, I think would set things back quite dramatically. I think that Creative Scotland will and should be judged on whether it delivers, and it seems to me that, if, after three, four or five years, the committee and the film sector believe that Creative Scotland has not delivered that ambition, then that would be the time to perhaps consider a different arrangement. However, I think that a different arrangement this time would be quite disruptive. Just what you have said, Mr Price, we do not have three or five years to wait and see what happens. Our interim report, based on the evidence that we received, is that Scotland has an incredible opportunity, at this point in time, to benefit from the amount of content that has been commissioned across the world, but we are already behind. If we do not get it right now, we will miss the boat. Can you understand that you say, we will wait five years and if it has not worked, it has not worked? That will send real chills through the sector. People will be very concerned to hear you say that, particularly because I have just learned today that you are actually chairing the screen committee, which I did not know until now. Well, what I have heard from quite senior members in the screen and film sector is that they also feel that it should be given its time. They believe that now the things are in place, they may report something different to you, but it will be interesting to see what the final input from them is. However, I have heard the feeling that they would like to give this time. They believe that things are in place to drive it forward. Of course, if I am committed to all my life to ensuring culture thrives, if I thought that the plan would not work and deliver what is the ambition, then, in a sense, I would have been in agreement with you. However, I do believe that it can, within Creative Scotland, deliver the ambition that the film sector wishes. Jamie Greene Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Can I just ask a point of clarification? When the committee produced its report saying that there should be a standalone agency, was it government that came to Creative Scotland and said, no, that is not how we want to do things, or was it Creative Scotland that pushed back to government and said, we want to keep this in house? The origins of the screen unit are based on an SNP manifesto commitment. The answer is the question. Can I move on to your letter, if that is okay? There is an interesting sentence in it that says that we have seen an increase in interest from international companies when it has come to Scotland to understand how industry incentives in Scotland compare to other countries. Apart from the usual incentives such as our wonderful landscape, scenery, great people and expertise, et cetera, what are some of the key comparisons between Scotland and some of our neighboring regions or, indeed, neighboring countries in terms of policy incentives, not just physical incentives? What are some of those key differences that you would pitch to a US exec of a large network? I am not quite sure what you mean in terms of policy incentives. Or financial, for example. Well, financial. The production growth fund, which has been discussed before, we provide funds to RECI funds so that people who are interested in filming here can be shown the landscape that you talk of, facilities for filming, et cetera, et cetera, meeting crew and those kinds of activities. On those key international opportunities, we have mentioned Toronto, Berlin and so on, where we are there representing Scotland. We take producers with us as part of that process. We host events. We proactively engage in those opportunities. We also recognise that the business works a lot in terms of direct engagement. We are active in pursuit of cultivating positive relationships. We mentioned the six top US executives recently. That is part of that process. The new executive director coming in will have a lead role as part of that to ensure that international working is effective on top of the work that we already do through the screen commission and so on. For example, I come to you with a big budget production for an online platform. I have the choice to, in Scotland, say Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, perhaps the scenery similar, the expertise and facilities are similar, but when it comes to real incentives, in terms of top-down incentives, how do you think Scotland compares in that scale? Do you think that we have enough top-down policy there at government level to ensure that we capture that business compared to some of our competitors? The enhanced funds are absolutely a key ingredient in those incentives. The tax credits environment is part of that equation. Of course, that is beyond Creative Scotland's direct responsibility, but all of that together, plus the talent and skills of the crew that we have here and so on, is what we do to promote Scotland and draw that inward investment. You say that tax credits is something that is outside of your remit, and that is a decision that is made by political people. I do get that, but surely the point of this agency that is there to represent Scottish Screen is not to be told simply what it should be doing by government based on government's policy, but to be lobbying government and saying that we need more incentives, we need more tax credits, and that is how other countries are doing it. That is how it works in other parts of the world, where the industry-led bodies are lobbying government, not just simply being directed by a government agency, which should affect what we are here today. How do you think that that is going to work in practice, and how effectively will you lobby politicians to get those changes that you think Scotland needs? I would not want anybody to misunderstand that that does not happen. Creative Scotland's non-departmental public body arms length, we are not directed by government, we operate under the framework with the Scottish Government and the policy priorities that are set out in an annual letter to us from ministers. However, we have the autonomy to direct our own resources and deliver the things that we are expected to deliver. As now part of that screen unit proposal with the partnership with the other agencies. The other aspect of what you said is that, of course, we have conversations. They are not always public and visible, but we have conversations not just at Scotland level but in a UK level about wider matters such as tax credits, incentives and so on. Just because that is not visible in a public sense, I would not want anybody to not know and understand that that actually does happen. I have just one final answer on the context of the new unit. Can you give me an idea of roughly how many people are dedicated solely to the screen unit at the moment and where that is heading? Is it going up or down? It is going up. It is doubling. We are currently at 12. There is recruitment for five already under way. I have mentioned most of them. The current plan is to add another 15. That is largely specialist, just to be absolutely clear. The model basing the screen unit and that team within Creative Scotland means that there is added value and a cost efficiency through economies of scale because that team has access to specialist support in other operational areas around finance, HR, funding and so on. All of that would need to be additional whether to be a separate screen agency with all the attendant additional costs as a result. The core specialist team is 12. It is moving up by 15 in the current plan, but it will be finalised once the executive director is in place. I will bring Clare Baker back in. Thank you, convener. I follow on from Jamie Greene's questions about industry involvement. The Scottish sector leadership group has been the key—there is only meant to be a short-term body—that group is still in existence and looks like it is the key industry involvement that you have. Notwithstanding, there are going to be three members on the committee. I understand that there is meant to be additional screen expertise coming on to Creative Scotland board, but I think that is one or two. How will you see industry engagement going forward? I think that it is important that the industry can have confidence in the screen unit and that the screen unit can be flexible and responsive enough to the needs of the industry. How will you manage that relationship going forward and how will you involve them in the direction of the industry? We recognise the call for greater involvement and we would wish to find the mechanism in a variety of ways to achieve that. I will expand on that in a second. To be clear, there are at least two new screen board members being recruited. It could be three. We will be strengthening in that part of the governance structure. On direct industry involvement, the SSLG was formed out of the committee's recommendations previously. It is a very good group under the chair of John McCormack. John, as I mentioned earlier, is one of the external representatives bringing that body of representation into the screen committee as one of the three industry representatives there. I understand that there is a screen and SSLG meeting coming up next week. I am sure that they will be reflecting on the committee's interim report and recommendations, too, but that group will also be talking about how it moves forward in terms of its representation. The other aspect of that is all about governance structures in the formal sense. The other thing that I would like to illustrate is that we connect on a daily basis, but where there are key developments and opportunities, we are committed to ensuring that we have industry and voices directly involved in the process of consultation of a new policy or a new fund. Most recently, the content fund, which is under development, is one of the other key planks of the new investment that we have—it will be £3 million. That involves industry representatives, 10 industry representatives in the development and formulation of what that content fund will be. We are in the final stages of that process, and we are about to play it back out to the industry representatives to get their agreement to the content fund proposal before we go live and we anticipate that that will happen in June. Just to add another example, the skills and talent strategy that I mentioned earlier will be consulted with an industry reference group in order to make sure that it is fit for purpose in skills and talent development. The convener also raised some concerns about the five-year plan and the timescales involved. During that time, how will you monitor success? We are not going to have to wait five years to find out whether it is success or not, so during the five years, how will you judge? The next five years that the money coming into Scotland through screen will increase, it is increasing everywhere, as Richard Lochhead pointed out, streaming services, the increase that is in production. We could expect it to be an increase, but how will that be judged to be a meaningful increase that gets us to the level that we should be competing at? We will see an increase in Northern Ireland and in Pinewood. How do we make sure that Scotland is making the progress that we want to see? I think that it will come in different forms and some will be through the practice of the work of the screen unit, how the new enhanced funds flow, what we are supporting and so on. However, the hard evidence will come through the annual reporting against the business plan that we have talked about earlier, where there will be very clear outputs and objectives set, and they will be reported on on an annual basis, because we need to keep unlocking the £10 million each year to keep delivering against that five-year plan. It will be tracked in that way, but the five-year plan itself has some high-level targets and objectives set out in it. Ultimately, that five-year plan in time, as we build towards it, will be able to see absolutely what progress has been made. I would hope and fully intend that we exceed that, but we have to have a minimum that we are aiming for. Yes, there will be growth everywhere, but we recognise that, internationally, there is huge scope for exponential growth within Scotland by getting all those ingredients right in order to enable it to happen. One of the early discussions in this was with some screen industry people on what those targets should be. The target set are ambitious, I think achievable, but they are ambitious. I am not saying that we will wait until five years to see if we will assess each year that we have to be looking to see whether we are delivering on those first years. One of the issues of film screen is that we sometimes do not see the outcomes for two or three years down the track, given the length of time of productions, but it will be important to monitor from day one that, in a sense, a difference is starting to be made. However, the targets are ambitious, and those are what will be judged against. Those were evolved in conversation with screen experts of what they thought the potential was and what they felt Scotland's ambition should be. Thank you, convener. It is towards Mr Price. Earlier, by 15 minutes ago, you said that the structure is in place. One of the earlier comments this morning was that the structure is not important. In 9.33, you said that, if more representation is required, we will look at that. That provides me with a confusing picture in terms of where we are going to go and what the structure is with the new unit. Can you provide some clarity, please? I am sorry. I think that I was talking about the structure of the committee and then the structure of the organisation. That highlights the point in terms of the lack of clarity. The structure is that we have the sub-committee that we have discussed. The staffing, we are building on an existing screen unit within Creative Scotland and expanding that structure. It is an evolving process. I am sorry if I confused that. We have put in place some of the staffing, but, as we have said, we wanted to hold off some of the further staffing until the screen post was fulfilled. It is slightly evolving in the structural process, but that seems to me the appropriate way forward. As Ian said, the input from the screen sector was not to put everything absolutely in place yet but to hold off some of it until the new post was in place. I am sorry if I confused you. I will come in quickly on updates on some of the other areas that we have taken evidence on. Data is a clear lack of data in terms of what the industry needs. There were plans to develop a new data hub as part of the screen unit. Could you give us an update on that? Could you also give it an update on the plans in the collaborative document to forge a partnership with the BBC? There is talk of other partnerships as well, so could you give us an update on where we are with those two things? On the data, as has been rehearsed many times in the committee, the data is difficult. It is very difficult to obtain a full data picture that we would all like. The data does not line up. We heard from Oldsburg, BFI and others on the difficulties there. As it points out in the collaborative proposal, there is a quarter of a million a year allocated towards data and research. It is one of the most exciting aspects of the whole proposal. That gives us the resource and the opportunity to nail some of the data questions, albeit that there will remain all kinds of difficulties. The knowledge and research team has been working with the BFI to understand the nature of the data that the BFI purchases. If memory serves nine different sources of data that the BFI purchases, the knowledge and research team in Creative Scotland is working with the BFI to understand what specifically about Scotland can be obtained from that data and the BFI is doing the work on that. The knowledge and research team is also working to scope out with partners what other sources of data can be made available. We have the resource to do that, but it is not just about the numbers. There is a strong need for qualitative research as well as gathering in the intelligence that we need. To understand better the impact of interventions to date and interventions in future, the role of the data and research aspect of the screen unit will help us immensely to track what is happening and what the impact is of our work. In terms of the partnerships with the BBC and others? In terms of the partnerships, we are talking to a number of potential partners. We had a large meeting yesterday with senior executives at the BBC and we will be following those up with STV, Channel 4 and others. So, do we have any dates when we expect announcements on those partnerships to happen? I cannot give you a date just now. I am going back to your comments on the data hub. Obviously, you have people who are currently doing that, but is there going to be a new development in terms of data? There is one new member of staff who is proposed for that team in order to enhance its capability and capacity. Basically, the data gathering is being done by the team that you have already had in place previously before the screen unit. Gathering some data, but you have to remember that they work across the whole of Creative Scotland and there is a huge amount of pressure on them to provide data across Creative Scotland's activities. We are not going to have a new data hub in the screen unit, because you are talking about those people who are part of Creative Scotland's research team. They are just doing what they have always done. There will be a data hub, but there is enhanced human resources as part of the plan, but it is also about the model across the partnership, particularly our key screen partners, including the BFI. The notion of a data hub is what we are trying to understand, what that means in order to be able to describe it and what the team is doing at the moment is scoping out what that might look like and, in due course, we will be able to describe it. Given that everyone has identified that data has been a problem, what you seem to be saying is that the people who have been responsible for it up until now are continuing to be responsible for it. Where is the change? If we are talking about a step change because of the big lack of data, you seem to be saying that nothing is really changing. It is the same people who were doing it before in the system that was not delivering who are continuing to do it. I want to make sure that that does not do a disservice to our colleagues in all the weeks. That is not a personal comment. Does it seem to be any good change? Well, there will be, but what is at the heart of it, as I am sure you heard from the evidence session last week, is the consistency and reliability of current methodology. What we have done today is to continue with the methodology that was in place from the Scottish screen to ensure that we can track on a consistent basis. There is a slight inconsistency there, as you heard, from the evidence session last week. We need, compared with the UK BFI methodology, to iron all of that out to understand how we can get to a much better place. Some of that is about the structures, some of that is about the methodology and some of that is about the human resources around it. That is what is being sculpted out at the moment. The plan for that is in train. We are working to better put in place a much clearer plan about what form the data hub will take in due course, what we are doing at the moment is scoping all of that out to be sure about what the issues are and how we are going to address them. It is important to stress and go back to the funds that the data and research aspect of the screen unit will have. Most data is bought and it will enable us to buy the quantity and quality of data that we need. I can finish up with a question to Mr Price, because you have revealed today that you are chair of the screen committee. You referred to it, I think, as a sub-committee. When you were asked earlier about our interim report and the recommendation on a stand-alone screen unit, you made a couple of points. One was that other sectors of culture also asked for their own agencies. You mentioned literature in particular. You also talked about fragmentation as a general problem. Our interim report was very much focused on the fact that the screen—we have had huge amounts of evidence on this—is that the screen is different from every other sector. It is different from literature and visual arts because it spans both culture and business. It also has the opportunity to create many jobs. Many people are listening to you today by comparing it to literature and by suggesting that fragmentation happens everywhere. When the screen sector leadership group and every other witness have agreed that fragmentation has been a real problem in delivering for screen, people will be concerned to hear you say that. Perhaps you do not recognise what everyone has been telling us, that screen is unique in its potential to deliver as well. I believe that each art form is unique. In my experience, I once worked for the Crafts Council. It was decided that it should be amalgamated into the Arts Council. There was a great uproar from the Crafts community that somehow that would lose their special approach. At that time, it did not happen, but it eventually did. Each art form is unique. If you heard from each of the art form sectors, you would hear a similar thing. Music spans commercial and cultural and is a huge industry earner. Of course, film is special, but I think that each other art form is special. Each art form needs its own specific approach to deliver it for the best. That is what I have tried to do both in my work and as a board member of Kettle Scotland to ensure that the policies that you put in place have a specificity to the art form but also strategic overview. Film is different, but I think that music is different, and each needs to be developed in its own way. My only point of making a concern was that it would be a shame, I think, for Scotland, which is a small country, if we started to get a fragment out of agencies all looking at culture. I think that it would make that strategic overview very hard to deliver for the Government. Every other country in the world has screen agency. If you look at other countries, they have other different agencies for different other art forms—many other countries have specific literature forms. It is a model that Scotland is trying to deliver and develop, and I think that it has the opportunity to think forward. Other people may disagree. I think that quite a few other people disagree, but I think that we are due to see the cabinet secretary next. I would like to thank you all for coming today to give your evidence, and we will have a short suspension for change of witnesses. Continuing our evidence this morning, I welcome the cabinet secretary for culture, tourism and external affairs, Fiona Hyslop MSP and her officials from the Scottish Government, Dr Jonathan Price, director of culture, tourism and major events, and Jane Holligan, the lead for screen and broadcasting. I understand that the cabinet secretary would like to make a short opening statement. Yes, convener, it will be short. I am very pleased to be invited to discuss the work that we are doing to enable Scotland's screen sector to grasp all the opportunities before us. The Scottish Government agrees with the committee about the enormous opportunity of screen both in film and television. We have already seen the results of our greatly increased focus on screen and record production, spend and significant new interest in Scotland, both from industry and tourists, coming to visit the locations and explore the stories that they have seen on our screens. Funding for the sector is already providing a really positive effect with £3.7 million now already allocated by the production growth fund, expected to deliver a spend in Scotland of around £60 million. Support is growing in many different ways, including of course with the national film and television school choosing to set up in Glasgow, their first base outside the south-east of England. Of course, it is fantastic news that Channel 4 announced yesterday that Glasgow is being shortlisted for its new national headquarters. That is an endorsement of the city's vibrant production community and innovative creative industries. There are enormous opportunities for international platforms and studios, hungry for content and from public service broadcasters who are increasingly looking to expand commissioning from the nations. That is why the Scottish Government has responded to the screen sector's ask and backed our film and television industry by doubling funding this year, with an additional £10 million in production, development and growth funding. That means that there will be screen funding this year of more than £20 million, compared to just over £3 million of Government funding for screen in Creative Scotland in the financial year 2007-08. In addition to funding through Creative Scotland, Scottish Government also invests £12.8 million directly in MG Alba, which in large part goes straight into our production industry. That is around £33 million of screen funding this year altogether. We believe that there must be a dedicated screen unit. That is the single front door for supporting film and television. I agree that the screen unit must have current expertise from industry. That is why we are recruiting people with screen expertise to the Creative Scotland board. My Creative Scotland is doing the same, bringing in further industry expertise at every level of the screen unit. I agree that the unit must be able to take fast and effective decisions. The new executive director will have the authority and freedom to do so. The screen committee is an advisory body on screen unit strategy to the board. Rightly, the largest decisions for instance decisions worth more than £500,000 for a single production will still go to the Creative Scotland board. Remember, with its new membership, it will include members with screen experience and will be advised by a committee with further industry experts. With plans well under way for new content development to be launched shortly, we will also see television get the support that it has been asking for. With the recently renewed production growth fund offering £2 million this year and the new skills survey that will report soon, I am confident that the services the screen unit will deliver should increasingly meet the needs of productions for funding and training. The screen unit is getting the attention that it requires and the groundwork that you have been asking for for a long time is now happening. To recap, there will be an industry expertise at every level of the screen unit and Creative Scotland board. The unit will be decisive and empowered. With more staff, it will be able to deliver a more complete service in areas where there have been gaps. It will be backed by more funding. We in government have provided that extra £10 million for screen and other agencies are also offering support. Support will be available in new areas, crucially in content development for television. There will be a skills strategy based on evidence with the first comprehensive workforce survey in Scotland since 2015 and the first freelance survey since 1992 being carried out now. We are starting to address the gaps that employers have pointed out. For instance, with the first courses from the national film and television school Scotland up and running and in terms of company development, the pilot project focus to help to develop television production companies is under way. We expect a single front door web portal to be available from August. In terms of infrastructure, the Pentland studio project has been granted planning permission and Creative Scotland is preparing a business case for a studio that will explore all current alternatives. More park studio has developed into a great facility where the highly successful Outlander programme has been filming and is now into its fourth series. It is only fair that now delivery is under way and a new executive director has been appointed that they will be given the space to demonstrate what they can do. There has been progress. Production spend for 2016 reached £69.4 million, which is three times what it was in 2007 when it was £23 million. I expect pace of progress to pick up sharply in the next 12 months as exciting new developments have an impact. We will have a new BBC channel and higher network spend. Channel 4 will be spending more in the nations and regions and making a decision about where its new hubs and national headquarters will be based. The effects at the increased public sector spend on development, productions and business growth, as well as on the skills, will start to bear fruit. It is important that we let the screen unit establish itself and get on with the delivery for the screen industry. Finally, I would like to thank the Scottish Screen Leadership Group, the industry and all the public agencies and, indeed, this and previous committees for their interest and support in developing the screen sector. I am excited about the future for screen in Scotland. I thank you again for the committee for their interest in this very important sector for Scotland. The Scottish Government has not yet responded to the committee's interim report calling for a standalone screen agency. Do you want to take the opportunity to comment on that now? I share the committee's appreciation of the opportunities, the potential and the growth, as I have just mentioned, in terms of the demand for screen production to be produced in Scotland and the opportunities for us to achieve more than we have been to date. That is absolutely crucial. I was a bit surprised that there was an interim report, rather than a final report. My genuine concern—I do not think that it is the intention of the committee—is that there should not be any either disruption or delay or derailing. The report appeared right in the middle of our recruitment process. That is of some concern. I hope that the committee in its final report gives support to the activities of the screen unit and to the new director, who will be appointed. It is really important that everybody gets behind the screen unit and its activity. In terms of the suggestions of a separate screen unit, that is something that you have had some evidence of. I am sure that you will give a detail of that in your final report. By and large, what I know from my discussions and the Government's discussions with the sector itself is that they really want us to get on with it and make sure that the screen unit can be established. What happens at some point in the future? Let us get it established and make sure that it can be focused on getting on with its work and not focused on something else, such as establishing a new unit. It takes several years to establish new agencies. There have been criticisms, probably by everybody in the Parliament at some point, about additional quangos or additional public bodies. It would require legislation and funding. One of the concerns about a standalone agency is that funding would be required to set it up, which could run into millions. That has happened in other areas, in time frame and also in legislation. That is all time and effort that is not being used on directly supporting the industry itself. If there is money available, it should go straight into the film industry. If you appreciate that, that is a genuine concern. I think that it is facts that you are entering the report and acknowledging the need for legislation. That is my response. Obviously, things can evolve, but I think that we need to give, as I said, the space for the screen unit to establish itself, particularly when we are in the middle of our recruitment round. I think that it is very important that the committee is sensitive to that position. Our report acknowledged that the work on the screen unit was under way and that we did not want to slow things down, but that plans should be developed for it to be transformed, not for a new agency, but for it to be transformed into a standalone agency, which every other country in the world has. The screen sector leadership group, which you praised in your opening statement, was one of its main concerns, the fragmentation in terms of the public sector bodies that are involved in delivering for screen. One of the reasons that we brought out our interim report was that we did not feel that that fragmentation was being addressed in the way that the Government's arrangements for the screen unit were being set up. This morning, we were previously told by Creative Scotland that there was going to be a memorandum of understanding between the public agencies in their evidence to us this morning. They told us that there was no longer going to be a memorandum of understanding between the public bodies. Clearly, the response to our interim report indicates that that fragmentation is something that people in the industry are really concerned about and that they do not feel that the unit is addressing it. You cannot judge the unit because it has not been established. I think that that is the danger of trying to assess something before it has been established. The screen unit collaboration report that was sent to us on 8 December was published on 11 December. It set out what I thought was a clear partnership agreement between all the different agencies. I heard the earlier evidence session and I absolutely agree with Barclay Price that a business plan with actions and annual reporting is far stronger than an MOU. An MOU might have been appropriate at some point much earlier in the process, that is why it will have been indicated to you that an MOU was being prepared, but I think that in terms of the committee that you have, that committee is as much about—I think that that is an important point—making sure that the activity that will still take place within Skills Development Scotland, particularly on the skills side, or the funding council for the funding of media and film and all the rest of the screen sector support areas within our universities and colleges, is done in a co-ordinated way that makes sense and is advised by the industry, which is why you are going to have three. You have already got Gillian Berry, David Strachan and John McCormack on the screen committee, but that committee itself is about mobilising and making sure that anything else that is happening will be co-ordinated in terms of the activity, but the bulk of the spend and the spend decisions on film will be taken by the yet-to-be-appointed executive director for screen who will be empowered to make those decisions, particularly, I think, which is very important in terms of that speed of reaction for when productions want to make a decision and to make sure that that can happen, but I think that in terms of the business plan that will be set out with the annual reporting, I think that that is far, far stronger than a memorandum of understanding to do something at some point in the future. A business plan means that this is what we are delivering, this is how we are going to do it, this is how we are going to resource it, and also for accountability, which I think is important certainly for myself as Government but also yourself as the parliamentary committee. The annual reporting will be a very powerful way to see the activity that has been generated by everybody working together for film. As I was pointed out in your earlier evidence session, that would happen regardless of whether the screening unit is part of Creative Scotland or whether it is a standalone unit. That would still be required. That may well be the case, but you can understand that the committee may be slightly perplexed that you take evidence from Creative Scotland a few weeks ago, and they argue about a memorandum of understanding, and suddenly the plan changes. It does not build confidence that they are quite focused on the delivery of this thing. I think that that was the greatest reflect. Even in the evidence session, you have got interviews taking place, meetings with the BBC yesterday, and this is a very active period for the development of the screening unit. I suspect that if you are taking evidence in the mid-process, you will get changes in development, but we are in a stronger position now with the proposition of a business plan. That will be very effective in accountability. There is also the issue of delivery. We were originally told that it would be delivered last December, and we are still waiting for it. If you heard the earlier evidence session, there were not many definite timelines. I know that, when I gave evidence to you, we were expecting the blueprint late autumn. It was eventually sent to the committee and agreed in December. In relation to the recruitment process, I shared frustrations that I expected Creative Scotland to embark on the recruitment process earlier than it did. However, in terms of the development, we are moving at pace now. You can see that in the activity that was reported to you today. I really want the screening unit to be given the best in the fairest wind. That is for responsibility, not just of Government but of Parliament, to ensure that the recruitment of all those additional members of staff to make sure that the screening unit is up and running has the support of Scotland. The issue of doing interim reports and doing inquiries during processes means that you will not get a complete picture until the unit is finally established. I wrote to the committee to say that it was expected that by the end of the financial year, as opposed to the calendar year, the unit would be established. That has not been the case because of the delay in the recruitment, but, as you have heard from the evidence today, there has been active interest, strong applications to the position of the executive director. The short-listing and the interviewing are happening as is, importantly, the appointment of up to three, possibly three members of Creative Scotland with Screen Industry, certainly two. I answered a question from Claire Baker on 25 April when I said that that recruitment was taking place. The adverts for the Creative Scotland Board membership was published again with a reference to the importance of the screen input that we were looking for. Everybody that is supplied has a screen background, and that is very important. That was published before the interim report. The criticism that you had in your interim report was outdated by the time the interim report was published by statements that I had made publicly in the chamber. That is the issue—yes, it is evolving—but it is developing for a good reason, and that is why everybody has to get behind the screen to enable it to succeed. In the question in the chamber that the cabinet secretary refers to, I asked about governance arrangements. One of the issues that prompted our interim report was concerns about the governance arrangements. You said in the opening statement that if a decision is worth more than £500,000, it would then have to be approved by the Creative Scotland Board. We have concerns that there is an issue with the ability of the executive director to have flexibility in decision making and autonomy in decision making. Half a million is a lot of money, but we are dealing with a global industry where a lot of money is a common factor. If we are looking to grow the sector in Scotland and be able to compete internationally, that sum of money is not unusual. In terms of decision making, you made clear that we expect there to be authority and accountability that the executive director can make those decisions. That is normal. It is not unusual for public agencies for investments of that sum. As with other boards, perhaps in Scottish Enterprise, that seeks board approval. That is not necessary. That can be done by correspondence, can be done swiftly. Remember that the board can be advised by the expertise that it can draw on. The recommendations will come from the executive director. That is not unusual for sums of that amount to have board clearance. Bearing in mind that, by the time that any amounts like that would be subject to decision making, the board would certainly have two possibly three of the then 11 members who have screen expertise. Critically, if they want to draw advice from the committee, they have got advice there. Remember that the committee is advisory. The screen committee is advisory. We heard this morning that the executive director's title is actually of screen and creative enterprise. We were unaware that that role had been a broader ream at than what we expected, and concerns have been expressed that it is diluting the importance of screen. We did hear evidence from Creative Scotland this morning that denied that, or that gave an answer to why they think that that is appropriate. Do you have any views on that? We have made it quite clear that we expect the executive director to focus, and most certainly in the early period of the screen, that is the focus, and that has to be the focus of the executive director. In terms of the recruitment, that has also been the emphasis that has been put on in relation to what we expect in terms of the applications and those that will be approved. Can I ask briefly about studios and about the infrastructure for Scotland? In May 2013, as Cabinet Secretary, you said that we were in active discussions with a range of organisations that we hoped would give positive news at some point in the future, so that was 2013. We had other statements in 2015 that were in discussions for studio space. Most recently, in 2016, we still have not had any studio capacity increase in Scotland that has come from the Scottish Government. While we have had Ward Park and we have got Pentlands progressing through its stages, we have not had the investment from Scotland. Evidence that we have taken was an issue in the last committee inquiry that the economy committee did. It is still an issue on-going. We have heard examples in Manchester and Belfast in Cardiff about public authorities being able to take a lead in developing studio space. What has been the issue in Scotland that has prevented us from making that type of progress? A couple of things. It is quite clear from the other investments that have taken place that have been using public assets in terms of empty spaces. You look at Belfast and other areas in terms of development. For example, in Wales, there was a former energy centre that was already owned by the Welsh Government. To make it clear in terms of the state aid requirements, that has to be private sector led. Your question to me was whether the Scottish Government has not done that. The Scottish Government cannot purchase a studio. It seems like Manchester City Council did. There may be issues. The state aid is an issue indeed. You are familiar with the previous committee inquiry. The Valencia case in 2012, a £265 million investment, was contravened and had to be repaid. In terms of the challenges that are there, in relation to Manchester or other areas, you have private sector developers, public assets and private sector developers. It is reliant on private sector developers wanting to take forward those developments. There are issues as to what has been spent by the public as opposed to what has been spent or invested by the private sector. You cannot do something that is in competition with the private sector by the investment from the public sector. I have been a critical factor. It is not that we have not had studio space. We have seen the production and activity, whether it is in Ward Park, whether it is in relation to the pyramids, whether it is in relation to other filming studios that I have personally visited, in terms of Churchill and Livingston or other places that have been used for filming. We absolutely need a film studio, not just one. That is my point. In terms of Pentland's proposal, you have heard evidence directly from them and their activity. We are also still, as I speak, actively involved and we have never stopped being actively involved in trying to identify activity in terms of a film studio. I am real concerned and maybe it is a compliment in the sense that we have used our public assets. There has not been a public space in terms of a building or anything else that has been owned by the public sector that we have been able to use in relation to setting up or helping them to get a private developer to become involved in order to take that forward compared to other places. It is extremely frustrating. I know that you have heard that before, but I am hopeful that we have developments. There are a number of areas where you have seen that development of studio space. As I said, the Pentland proposal, Ward Park, there are others that you may have been familiar with and others that I know are active, but I cannot necessarily give detail of at this stage. I will have me open in order to get other members in. Thank you very much. Richard Lochhead, followed by Tavi Scott. I should say that, of course, there are lots of state-owned, big empty spaces in my constituency. If you are looking for a state-owned empty space for a studio, the former RAF can-loss space comes to mind, for instance. In terms of the future of the film industry and the screen sector in Scotland, we are now in the 19th year of devolution, and there is a sense that we have never quite put in place the measures to capture the massive opportunity of film and screen. Of course, now in this year, in subsequent years, the opportunity is bigger than ever with the changing landscape. The Government has prioritised life sciences, food and drink, tourism, renewables and some other sectors, but we have never quite done that with film and screen. As I say, now there is a real chance to do that, and the stars appear to be aligning with some of the measures that you have outlined in your opening remarks, which is great news. The committee's view is that, although things are a lot better and looking a lot more optimistic, we do not just want to be better, we want to be the best. That is why the committee has proposed a standalone film agency for Scotland. Given that the Government has a lot of experience of changing the status of agencies over the past few years, surely we can find a way to establish a standalone film agency for Scotland that avoids the disruption that you seem to be pointing out, because there seems to be institutional resistance to a standalone film agency for Scotland. We have just heard the same arguments from Creative Scotland, so can we not just go on with it and find a way of moving forward and doing what is best, because this is a huge economic opportunity and one of the potentially biggest growth sectors for Scotland in the next years? The feedback that I have had is that you should not delay doing what you are doing. You should make sure that the skin unit can be established, and there is nothing said or done that disrupts that in the process of setting that up. In relation to the point about setting up new agencies, which are colleagues from previous Governments and Cabinet, it still is the Government's view that we should not be establishing new agencies unless, for example, like social security or revenue, there is a real demand for new powers that we need to do that. There is a point about that spend on money and legislation and the changes to develop Creative Scotland. We are actually started by the previous Government, which I think that Tavish Scott was a member of at one point in relation to the development of bringing together what was then a separate unit, which, remember, only spent £3 million in terms of the amount of money that it had to spend. That, again, involved legislation. I am not sure that that would be the most effective use of public resources and public money to spend it on establishing HR, finance, sorting out pensions, and all the different things that you have to do to establish the agency. It is the funding activity that matters. I am asking the committee to give the same unit a chance and to make sure that it is unencumbered in trying to establish what it is doing by thinking about other issues that are more to do with organisation and bureaucracy rather than delivering for film, because that is what is important at the end of the day, is what we deliver for film. As the Scottish Government has repeated many times, we face quite a bleak post-Brexit world, and we are looking for wins and economic successes. We should perhaps grasp opportunities that are laid before us, and I would argue that the filming screen is one of the big opportunities for Scotland of the 21st century. Therefore, in terms of the Scottish Government's policy of not creating new agencies, there have been some exceptions for the reasons that the cabinet secretary has mentioned, should we not also make this an exception? Surely giving up that principle of no new agencies is worth it if it is getting more economic benefit for the country, given that this is a massive industry that we are speaking about? The screen as it is established will be able to do that. It was supported by the screen leadership group. In January 2017, the Scottish screen sector leadership group said that we strongly support the Scottish Government's proposal to establish a much-enhanced screen unit with an expanded remit to enable it to assume this critical leadership role. We have the support of the industry and what we are doing. Your point about the wind factor for a filming screen, I absolutely agree that it is why I have managed, in a very difficult budget area, when culture has not necessarily been a protected area, it has been set out in manifestos or other programmes for government. I have managed to not only manage to get a maintenance of the Creative Scotland's budget, but to get an additional £10 million for the screen unit. That is doubling of the funding in a very tight settlement, which is quite an achievement. That puts us in a very strong comparative position in relation to investments that are made by other countries that are similar size in the film industry. That is a good and strong position to be in. In relation to key sectors, Creative Industries is one of the Scottish Government's seven key sectors. I agree that I want it elevated in its importance and what it does. We have a Creative Industries advisory group that is established, and film is critical to that sector. I believe that it should get more profile in terms of its contribution. The contribution of creative industries to Scotland's economy is more than life sciences, but life sciences is obviously a key sector for people who are probably more aware of it. That is not just my role. It is the role of everybody in Parliament who believes in the importance of creative industries to ensure that there is greater awareness of that contribution. It is one of the fastest-growing sectors across the UK. Whatever happens when the UK leaves the EU, it is absolutely critical that we are focusing on sectors that can deliver real growth. That is absolutely one that can deliver real growth. It is also important that we get more people in terms of career choices to come into the sector, because it is one that I think will be delivering for Scotland in the future. The economic importance is absolutely vital, which is why we are investing so much. The business case that Creative Scotland described to us earlier on was given to you in December of last year, and the Government approved it at that stage. Correct. The screen unit collaborative proposal, which was published in December— It was described earlier on as a business case. In terms of the business plan that was described earlier on, it is what will be delivered in relation to screen unit. That will be able to have an annual report that is going forward. What was produced in terms of setting up the screen unit and how it could be set up, and what it should do was informed by the Scottish Screen Leadership Group, but it was put together and given to the committee on the 8th of December. I am asking about human rose evidence earlier on, which she said quite specifically that the Government and the Minister were presented with a business plan in December of last year, and that was approved at that stage to set up the screen unit. You can call it a business plan or you can call it a screen unit collaborative proposal. It is the same thing. Did that business case include a recruitment timeline for the executive director? It was quite clear at that time that I wanted Creative Scotland to start the recruitment process immediately, but that did not happen until later. I am sorry, that is not the question that I asked. Did that business case include a recruitment timeline for the recruitment of an executive director? Well, I think that it will have done, yes. You do not recall when that recruitment was due to start in that business case. I cannot give you a date of what it says in the proposal, but the idea was to try and get the unit established, the screen unit established, by the end of the financial year, but the recruitment did not start. I am frustrated that I made it clear that the recruitment process for the director should have started earlier, but it has started. We are in the middle of this, and I think that it is important that they are given the space to get on with that. I know that it is just puzzled because you said earlier on that you were frustrated by that and we can understand that, but I am therefore puzzled as to why it was not in that business plan and why it was not questioned at that time in December of last year. It was questioned. I made it clear that I expected that to start. Right, so it was not a business plan. There was a clear timeline in that business plan as to when that exactly happened. Well, I will double check on the actual timeline in the plan, but I can tell you absolutely in my conversations with Creative Scotland, I was quite clear. I would bear in mind that in that process, when we were still going through the budget process of the Scottish Government, the additional £10 million to set up the screen unit had not been approved at that point, and indeed there will be members of this committee who voted against having that additional funding when they voted against the final budget proposal. So remember that that was an area that the funding had absolutely been secured because of the budget process. Can I just finish my questions? We do not have much time and I want all members to be able to get in. Thank you. The only other question that I was going to ask was on Claire Baker's question. You said on the executive director's job title that it would be solely concentrating on film, but that is not what the job title says. The job title and the responsibilities are for screen and creative enterprise, but I have been quite clear with Creative Scotland and they were quite clear, I think, in their evidence that the focus absolutely is about establishing the screen unit, so the focus will be about screen particularly. But the job title is wider than that, cabinet secretary. Yes. And you accept that? Well, that's what's been established, yes. Right. Ross Greer. Thanks, convener. Cabinet secretary, I'd like to revisit the points that were just made around state aid in relation to Claire Baker's question on studios. You said that state aid rules essentially mean that this process would have to be private sector led, but that's not my understanding of state aid rules. In fact, if it was private sector led and there was government funding and support for that, that would break state aid rules. But if it's entirely public sector led and as long as the eventual entity meets the market operating principle, as long as it can compete fairly in the market, then that would comply with the rules. Is that the Scottish Government's understanding of state aid? Part of the testing that we've had, and that goes back to 2014, probably before you were elected to this place, in terms of our scrutiny of that, has been exactly on the basis that this unfairly competing was. If there was market failure, I would argue that over that period it's quite clear that we haven't had that permanent studio that we've been requiring, but at every step of the way, when any proposal is put forward, they've been tested on the basis of does it meet market failure and does it comply with the state aid provision. Any proposals that have been brought to us, the professional advice that has been given, is that it would leave us open to challenge it. It's got to operate on commercial terms. That's the critical part of this. We've taken some evidence around Manchester. I'm sure that we're very familiar with the situation there through the council and their allios and what they've managed to achieve. Has there been any communication between Scottish Government officials and those in Manchester? They've gone through three phases of this development. As a city council, they would be far more at risk from any successful legal challenge against them. They've thoroughly risk assessed that process at each stage and came to the conclusion that they were on solid ground and met state aid rules. Has there been any communication? Part of our on-going assessment is that we're constantly looking at the different sectors, the different parts of the country, what they are doing, to do a compared contrast, to see what they're doing, to see if there's anything that we can learn from that. Manchester, in particular, we understand, uses more loan financing as well, so loan financing can be a different—again, people have to then be able to be prepared to take the commercial risk, because it is a commercial risk that the loan aspects will be repaid. None of the proposals that we've had to date in Scotland would have necessarily been in the loan aspect, but that's another area that we can look at, and that's perhaps why they think—again, I can't make a judgment on this—that there's more compliant. Just one brief question around governance. The concern that has come up repeatedly is that what we're going to end up with it is not screen sector-led. Governance at the screen unit level is dominated by public agencies, some of which there is long-running frustration with, and then the ultimate level of governance before it reaches your office of cabinet secretary is through Creative Scotland, whose board, even with additional screen sector experience, is never going to be a majority screen sector experience. At one level, we've got governance dominated by public agencies, many of whom elicit a lot of frustration. At another level, governance dominated by those without screen sector experience. Is the sector, is the industry actually involved enough in driving this process and will it be? The governance arrangements don't seem to make that case. Okay. The governance arrangements are, as I've said, the board of Creative Scotland will have two, possibly three members, new members that will have screen experience in the recruitment process for that. The advertisement went out on the 27th of April. That's now closed and we're in the process of recruiting and appointing those positions. Let's be clear about the governance and again it goes back to the document that was sent to the committee on 8 December. The screen unit collaborative proposal referred to as a business plan. It sets out what the role of the enhanced screen committee will be and it is to do the following. Advice, I remember I said it's an advisory committee. Advise on screen unit strategy and report on its performance. That's after the effect to make sure that in terms of the advice going in but also performance. Agree, scrutinise and monitor management plans and oversee the effectiveness of partnership working to make sure that all the partners are working collectively. That's high Scottish Enterprise, as I mentioned, the funding council, because a lot of the film courses and all the rest of it are financed. So that's it. It's not a governance as in terms of decision making. It's not a decision making committee. It's an advisory committee and I think that might clear up some of the points of concern that the committee has had. They've thought it's an additional layer of governance in decision making. It's not. Major funding decisions would have to go straight to the board. Again, that would have an enhanced screen experience. They've also got the industry. I've talked about the members who are on the screen committee that can advise the board as to whether that makes sense in terms of the proposal. If it's over half a million for public funding, that is appropriate. Again, swift decision making can take place, as it always does, and it does currently among the board members for large public sector funding. Does that not go to the core of the issue that, ultimately, the largest and most significant decisions will go to a board that is not driven by those with screen sector experience? Well, I think that 3 out of 11 is a strong position. I don't think that the board would take a decision that was against the advice from the executive director or supported by a screen committee. This committee has a lot of recent experience with the decisions of the Creative Scotland board and frustration with them in other areas. There is a real concern within the screen sector that this is a board that, for all positive intentions—no-one doubts the positive intentions—simply does not have the required experience to drive those kinds of decisions. The vast majority of decisions about screen investment will be made by the executive director themselves. They will ultimately be accountable to the board and the board will make the most significant decisions. Under the advice from the executive director who will come from the screen industry and be an expert themselves and advice is available from the screen committee that does have not only three current screen members but also the additional three board members. In terms of making sure that the decision-making process can take place swiftly, you have the empowerment of the executive director for the vast majority of the decisions for those few decisions that will be a measure of it. That is not unusual. Other public boards will be making decisions, but they will draw on expert advice. That is what is available to the board. We have managed to make sure that there are leading industry members who can help them with that decision-making in terms of their advice. However, that happens in other sectors. You are not going to have a major investment investment decision for life sciences for manufacturing. We would go to a board where you are expecting every single member of that Scottish Enterprise board to be a life sciences expert. You have to think about it in those terms. In terms of the amount of decisions—you have made decisions already—the major investment for Netflix, for Outlaw King, has supported not only jobs training, all the rest of it, in terms of the spend in Scotland, but has also helped to develop very importantly—it goes back to the committee's own evidence as well about the importance of Netflix and others in terms of streaming, in terms of spend, to develop the relationship with that decision. That decision was already made by a precious panel. I do not think that we have to move on to the next member. I am sorry, otherwise we will not get everyone in. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Cabinet Secretary, is it your understanding that, despite the recommendations of the committee, which were very clear, Scotland will not get a stand-alone screen agency, that you have no plans to set one up, and that the new screen unit will be led by an executive director who is not focusing solely on screen? The executive director will focus on screened in the initial stages. You heard that not just from me, but also from the previous evidence session. In relation to ensuring that we have effective screen units, what we cannot afford and what I really have concerns is that we do not try and delay this. That is the real concern that I would have. That has been relayed to me as well. Any attempt by the committee to try and delay things would be problematic. What happens at some point in the future, whether it becomes a stand-alone agency, I am not saying no never, I am just saying not now. I think that that is really important to give a signal that we are getting behind the screen unit. I think that it is not unreasonable that not all countries have separate screen agencies. We want to make sure that the screen unit can have that swift as the foot, the resources, the funding. It is going to be in a well-established place, but if it is at some point in the future, I am not saying that I am not going to implement, as of tomorrow, a move to set up a separate screen unit, we are in an absolute live process of recruiting people as we speak. I think that that would be a very unusual position for any organisation, let alone a Government, to take, is to change paths in the middle of our recruitment process. With the greater suspect, the previous panel said that there would be a wider remit than just screen. The term creative enterprise, I do not know what that means, what other activities, tasks, duties will this executive director have that are not focused solely? It is the word solely that is important here, solely on screen. This is the only agency that we will have in Scotland, so it is imperative that that executive director is focused solely on screen. I am supportive of that position, and I think that it is an important position that the executive director can focus on screen. I would prefer it solely on screen, but in terms of the commercialisation aspects that were referred to by Barclay and Ian, that is an important area that they will be able to bring to wider understanding and application. I think that the main focus has to be on screen, and that has been my message to creators. I am not establishing the position that is being established by Creator Scotland, but I think that it might take the committee's views on that, and I have not directed them on that, but I urge them to remember that they are a non-departmental public body, but I have urged them to focus on the screen sector as the priority. Just as a final point, and it is more of an observation that I am obviously new to the committee, but I find it very disappointing that the cabinet secretary is implying that the committee, with its collective goodwill and cross-party views, is somehow trying to impede the development of the screen sector in Scotland. I find that a bizarre stance to take. It is quite an unusual position to establish an interim report. I take the goodwill of the committee, and it would be great if your final report would reflect your support for the screen unit and what it is trying to achieve. I think that that is a very important signal. In terms of where I am, I want to make sure that the screen unit is established. I do hope that the committee can get behind it, but you have yet to publish your final report. Your initial interim report was critical rather than necessarily as supportive as I might have liked. However, the committee is independent and can make its own decisions about what it wants to do. It is important that the expression of that is one that is supportive of the sector. As Rich Lock had said, it has fantastic enormous potential, but what you find in other countries is that support from all parties, Parliament and Government is something that we should all get behind. I encourage the committee to do so. It is hard to take that necessarily from the interim report and the timing of it. That might perhaps be more appropriate for a final report, but that is up to the committee. You can make your own decisions. I am not quite sure what the point of the intervention was at this stage when you do not want to disrupt the process of it. I am not sure why I could not have waited until your final report, but that is a judgment call for the committee, and it is up to you to make that decision. I am relatively new to the committee as well, but I find it interesting that you are critical of the committee in its stance. At the end of the day, what I can see from the process is that we have been trying to identify the best way to go forward. We should all be trying to sing from the same hem sheet and not create some kind of divide that we already seem to be having. My question is about the key sector and the skills that are required and the opportunities that are there. Can I ask about the role that Scottish Enterprise has in the process? Are you content, as the cabinet secretary, that the skill-based knowledge and understanding that it has is sufficient to lead everything going forward? The leadership will come from the screen unit and the executive director, but what we want to do is to make sure that those functions that will still remain are not an excuse for other agencies not to support the screen sector. That is really important. The leadership will come from the screen unit and the spend is there for the screen unit to exercise, but those activities, whether it is on business development aspects for Scottish Enterprise or indeed, as I have talked about, film media courses from funding council, those activities are going to be very important to continue. There have been successes from that. You have seen a blazing riff in a very good example of good strong Scottish Enterprise support for a developing area and access animation in different areas, particularly in screen digital. We have not really touched much on screen digital, but those aspects of where Scottish Enterprise can provide additional resource and funding need to continue that. You have identified the breadth and depth that falls into the screen sector. It is important that we capture all of that, that we are not just specialising on some areas initially. We need to ensure that we broaden the net as wide as we can to ensure that we get the best possible opportunities for individuals and organisations to come, because we do believe that they will do that. By us giving that confidence and by you giving that confidence, that will happen, but I get the feeling that we are not widespreading the net wide enough in this whole process. I am not quite sure that we are spreading the net wide enough. To make sure that all parts of the sector that can fall into the screen sector are being identified and getting the opportunity to develop. That is exactly why the screen committee, a lot of its focus, is on mobilising all the resources that we have across Scotland, which is advised by screen experts, the three board members plus the three industry sector representatives. That enables the wider activity that can be mobilised to be brought behind. It is about confidence. We have got to be confident, so that is why I do not want to be overly critical, and I am not. I am just a bit concerned that we have got to make sure that we are facing the opportunities of the screen unit with confidence. Questioning is good, and that is the responsibility of the committee. Absolutely. Confidence is going to be very important. In anything that dents that, I think, would be problematic for us. That is why I think that in terms of mobilising everybody's support for both the agencies, the Parliament, the committee and the Government, that is going to be critical in making sure that we can really make sure that Scotland finally, and I know frustrations, and I know your news committee, but there are older members of the committee and previous committees that know where we have been. We really finally have the platform that we can make a difference, and I think that everybody needs to get behind that. Cabinet Secretary, a few moments ago that you said in response to a colleague that you would not rule out a standing-alone agency at some point in the future. I absolutely accept your point regarding confidence and moving forward with the proposal that is on the table. With that in mind, how will the Scottish Government measure the success of the screen unit going forward? In terms of, again, going back to the screen unit collaborative proposal, there was clear, quite ambitious targets of what we want to achieve, and that was set out in that proposal. Increasing the numbers of major companies that are involved in investment in the spend that we have. In terms of the business plan, the actions that are from that will have an annual plan that we can have accounting on that. The ambitions that are set out in the screen unit collaborative proposal sent to the committee in December set out what our expectations are, and we can measure against that. Again, if that is something in your final report, you want to advise what you can consider as being elements of success. That would be very helpful for you to contribute to that, but we have already been very clear and very ambitious, informed by the screen leadership group themselves as to what their expectations would be and what is embraced within the screen unit collaborative proposal given to the committee in December, supported by the screen leadership group, is what we want to measure against. I am very optimistic of what we can achieve. We have already seen that additional spend that I have managed to secure into the production growth fund. Already £3.7 million has leveraged and supported another £60 million of investment, so that is a strong position to be in. Would you anticipate that that level of investment and the level of growth from that will continue in the centre of the cost of the next two years? I know that there are plans at the centre for five years, but would you anticipate to see continued growth over the course of the next three years? Support from the committee in terms of investment into screen would be helpful when we come to our budget considerations, but we are serious about this and we want this to be a success as a Government. Therefore, we want to continue our investment in the screen, and in terms of the levels that we have managed to achieve, that is very competitive indeed. We are in a strong position. In terms of continued growth, I think that somebody else made a comment that the expectations will be in terms of the market development that there should be growth of demand. Certainly, the tax breaks from the UK Government have been instrumental in making us more attractive. Who knows where the financial situation of the UK Government can be? I cannot predict that, but I can tell you that there has been recognition of the leverage that we have managed to achieve in relation to having that tax breaks. I have been very attractive. Also, devalued pound has been helpful in terms of value for what you can get. Some of the things that you can control, some of the things that you cannot control, but we do anticipate over the next period that there will be growth in this sector, growth in demand, both from public sector in terms of their spend in the nations and regions, not least because of this Government and the Parliament's previous committees putting pressure on the public sector broadcasters to achieve that. Both from the private demand, whether it is the streaming companies, whether it is from Netflix or others, but the demand is certainly there. We need to make the most of that demand. However, there are certain elements that we can control, but some of the other areas that we cannot, and we can continue to make sure that the tax breaks that we currently have are continued and enhanced if preferable. This morning, we heard the issue regarding a potential new studio location. In going forward, who would have the responsibility for driving that type of investment? Would it be this new unit? Would it be Kate of Scotland? Or would it be Scottish Enterprise? It would be the screen unit itself. It would be supported by the board, obviously, for any major investment decisions, and Scottish Enterprise can have a role as appropriate. However, because it is tied in as part of the screening committee in terms of that collective collaborative role and the business plan that we have had, it knows what its responsibilities are in terms of delivering. However, the driver for that will come from the screening unit. Thank you very much. We are now considerably over time, so we will have to wrap up. I thank the cabinet secretary for coming to give evidence to us today. I share committee members' disappointment with the criticism of our interim report. Our interim report was done after taking extensive evidence from the industry, and it has been warmly received by the industry. We are not trying to slow things down, as the interim report said, but to make sure that we get absolutely the best for the sector. Our intervention was because we were concerned about the direction of travel, and I think that Creative Scotland's decision to not appoint someone with a title that was solely focused on screen suggests that the committee was right to question the direction of travel. I think that your evidence today reflects your concern. One of the first major decisions in the screen unit is to appoint the head of the screen unit, and it is not solely focused on screen. That explains why we are concerned about the direction of travel and why we have brought out our interim report. I appreciate the committee's intention and I appreciate your report. Thank you very much.