 Erydra Gwern typin i'r cwysligau cymdeithasol argymwy briceiwyr dwysgrifiadau, yn ym Scotland, i chi'n ei peth yn gallu hyn yn ystod i gyfnodol, i gwirio swyddemau, i chi'n mynd i gael gwirio ond byw i'ch mewn cydweithasol. Erydra Gwern typin a'r gyfnode i'u gweithasol yma, i gael gwirio ond byw i'ch gweithio sy'n gweld cymdeithasol ar gyfer y Rhyon Fwyro o'i cyfrydiau Gwern typin yn y diolch yn pleidio ac yn bryd, Llyw bit i ziwel multicol, argyn careless oaf. The next item on the agenda today, is an evidence session with fuel ingg his slip. Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs. I'd like to welcome the Cabinet Secretary to the meeting and also Jonathan Price the Scottish Government's Director for Culture, Tourism and Major Events. David Sirr is the head of sponsorship and funding and Claire Tynt Ir absorbd Deputy Director of the International Division. Now I understand. Cabinet Secretary, your not making an opening statement? Rwy'n credu'r cyfrifennu i chi, ac mae'n mefyddeni'r cynhyrch yn gwybod. Mae'r cyfrifennu yn y cyfrifennu ar gyfer dros y budget, maen nhw'n mynd i'r tyn ni fel amblog y cerddau a chyfrifennu dweudio antym ni'n gwybod. Rwy'n credu'r cyfrifennu i chi'n mynd i'r cyfrifennu, a g squaredau, wrth gwyl i'r yourself, been notably being known for the events that took place in Edinburgh in relation to the PYLAMOS studio. I wonder if you could give us any updates on that and also your views on the other proposal announced yesterday that the private sector will be cwymodd hynny i ddweud o'r gwmpas ynghylch ag rhaiol i'r Palinas. It's also worth reiterating that we've always said that there's room for more than one studio in Scotland and there's the capacity for that. We've obviously got the word part development that you should be familiar with. In relation to Palamas, the scale of the operation that the Vorry had in relation Sosio ar symud y ffilm. Mae gennym ni'n dzaen o ddigoniem a ddialogau o gewdraffau ysgau Maryfyn a'r ddigonio ar gyffredinidol. Mae'n ddigonio ar bobl gwaith i weithio. Mae'n gweithio ar maen nhoc. Mae'n gweithio ar gwaith Plylamys a ddigonio ar gwaith ysgau i weithio. Mae'n gweithio ar ddigonio ar gwaith. Mae'n ddigonio ar gwaith i weithio ar weithio ar gwaith. Mae'r ystau cyhoeddfawr i mi'n rydyn ni, fyddai bobl yn gwmwyaf. Mae blwyddyn yn y ddigwitio'r perth Selwys. Mae'n nidóbeth i ni, ac mae hefyd yn siaraddu'r ffordd rwy'i mwyaf. Mae'r cyfnod â y prifod yma ynoli i osu yn ysgriffflynau, ac mae'n rhywun o'r cyfnod â'r cyfnod a oherwydd eich pwyllgor a'i ysgrifwll. Yn iawn, mae'n adroddau yma, oherwydd mae'n mwyaf o'r ysgrifwll. Obviously that's part of a planning process and as you'd understand, as a minister, I wouldn't necessarily be able to go into those aspects. Things are looking healthy for the prospects for a film studio and investment, and we're at a very strong level. I understand of investment operation that Streets Scotland is currently working with 25 different productions. Therefore I was an update on the studios, but also on the spend aspects in terms of ensuring that some of the additional funding that we managed to secure last year is now starting to be used in relation to not just attracting films here but also very importantly supporting indigenous productions as well. I'm delighted that we're going to see the premiere of Mary Queen of Scots next week in Scotland. If I'm allowed as the MSP for the list goes sure to say that's a very great opportunity, not just for the people just on the culture side, but for the tourism aspect for Scotland. Okay. Thank you very much. To drill down on that, can you give us any indication of where we are in terms of tenders for the doenkot build? I mean, what kind? what kind of interests have there been? I mean that's not an operational matter. The Scremes Scotland is the responsible for. I don't think it would be correct for me to release any information. I haven't I do not have the information as to whose tender it is yet. We have some supplementaries from Jamie Greene on the subject of screen. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Can I just turn to the numbers in your response to us? It states that this year's budget will provide a further £10 million doubling in effect to £20 million from 10 million. Just to confirm that, that will be £20 million allocated to Screen Scotland this financial year. Yes. Okay. I just wonder if you could maybe elicit a little bit more from you in terms of what you think that doubling will provide, or what sort of outcomes that we should expect from it? Yes. It's part of the overall ambition that was set out in the screen leadership group report to double the amount of production spend that we want to see in Scotland, but also to grow production companies. We also want to see an improvement in the numbers of production companies that are operating at scale. That's the overall strategic aim. In relation to some of the areas, we've now got a number of funds that are in operation, the production growth fund, for example, and we've seen an increase, and the latest figures had shown an increase, by £26 million up to £92 million in terms of production spend. We've already seen that progress with some very big productions. Outlaw King, obviously, since we've probably last met us, has now been released and obviously the impact of that across Netflix is very strong, but, importantly, the amount of spend that that had, particularly for crew production, et cetera, was very strong indeed. We're also seeing in terms of television spend, in terms of announcements, in terms of funding for that, and the partnerships that I think everybody recognised could happen with the different production companies. That's in operation. They're scaling up in terms of their staffing, because that's part of what I know this committee is taking a keen interest in, so the recruitment of that is very strong indeed. It's obviously the combination of, yes, inward attraction for films to locate here in terms of the filming, but also very much in terms of trying to help indigenous as well. I know that this is an area that the committee is taking a keen interest in, and I think that we can work with you and, obviously, you'll want to speak to Srin Scotland at some point. What would be the appropriate time for them to give you a good account of what the progress has been to date? I thank you for that. It's a very comprehensive answer, and much of that is very welcome. Given that staffing is on the increase, often, as is the case when an agency grows, is that the staffing cost also grows. I guess that the industry is asking, will this additional funding provide any real opportunities for additional support for small independent production companies, in the sense that it won't all be swallowed up in a growth within the administrative cost of the agency itself? Absolutely. That's what we'd be expecting, is to make sure that there's a growth in the production companies. Obviously, we're looking for scale, because that's one of the key aspects. Currently, we've only got two companies that are probably in the top 50 in terms of the actual scale of what they do, and we want to grow that from two to six, I think, as the target and the leadership group. I think that your point about how do we help small independent producers is really critical, and we can do that in a number of ways, certainly through the work of Srin Scotland operating. On the challenges with BBC through Ofcom, and the work that this committee will do in my meetings with Ofcom, I'm very pleased with the most recent reports from Ofcom about the importance of trying to make sure that you have genuine spend that is actually for indigenous Scottish companies to grow. I think that that's an area, and also with the Channel 4 commission that will help in that area as well. For me, in terms of my discussions with Creative Scotland and Screen Scotland, I'm very keen to make sure that this is about the development of the sector, because that's one thing that we can do, is that creative content will come from the creatives, but in terms of enabling the creative industries and the actual businesses to grow, that's a critical aspect of what we need to see happen. Okay. Thanks very much. Claire Baker. To follow on the questions around the screen sector, the report that the committee did last year made some strong recommendations around the role of Scottish Enterprise and expressed our concerns about their involvement in the screen unit. Could you perhaps… We also made recommendations that the budget should be moved from Scottish Enterprise over to the screen unit within Creative Scotland. Also, that's the responsibility of a different cabinet secretary, but if the cabinet secretary this morning could maybe give us an update on that relationship. I think that there has actually been a co-response with the committee explaining some of the developments with the MOU of Scottish Enterprise, but also in relation to some of the actual activities. One of the business development initiatives is something called Focus, and that again, in terms of the autumn area, that has been developed. In terms of that happening, some of the activity around that over the summer, you've also then got the screen committee, which is critical of the screen expertise and the industry expertise, to help to ensure that the activities that are driven both by Enterprise, by Skills Development Scotland and by everybody else is operational and working well. The regional selective assistance programme is one of the key areas where Scottish Enterprise has been investing. Of course, I'm not sure that you'd necessarily agree that the creative industries aspect of regional selective assistance should move into my budget, so I think that this is the point about the co-operation, rather than necessarily the budget move. I know that the committee is keen for a budget move, but if you look at two companies that I've got an interest in and I've visited and I've seen the investment, you've got access animations that are developing and have increased staffing, and they've had funding regional assistance to help to develop and grow their staff. They are particularly looking at animation slides to look at how they can then work to, for example, global theme parks. Everything is digital now in terms of presentations, and there are real opportunities for them to develop in that area. Blazing Griffin is a company that I visited that received regional selective assistance. They were behind the Anna and the Apocalypse, the Christmas hit that came out, and it was also at the Edinburgh International Festival, and again, that's the combination of bringing different skills together. It's an enhanced graphic aspect that Scotland is very, very good at, so there is that initial business development side, but there's also the point about identifying what support can be given to grow numbers of jobs, and that's obviously at the Scottish Enterprise area as well. We're not shifting budgets, which I know the committee wants to see, that's not happened, but there's a much, much closer working, even the operationalisation of that since the summer period, and that's something that I know the committee will keep a keen interest in, but it's not necessarily a budget scrutiny issue because we haven't chanced around the budget. That's more about what Scottish Enterprise is doing, but I'm sure our colleagues in Scotland, and indeed with the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy and the Fair, that's something that you might want to pursue separately, but I don't know that that's a specific issue for a budget scrutiny session. I turn to local authority funding. Last year, when the committee took evidence around the Create Scotland funding decisions, we did then look at broader issues around funding for the whole creative sector. Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the cuts that have been experienced by local government leaves cultural organisations quite vulnerable? They don't come under statutory protection in many areas. The evidence that we received from creative groups was that they were running out of options for funding. It was very tight at local government level. They felt that there wasn't enough funding within Create Scotland to meet the demand that's there. Something that Creative Scotland has recognised, although they acknowledge that they are receiving a settlement that is reflective of previous years, but the demand out there is so great that they are struggling to meet that demand. Local authorities aren't able to pick up that provision. There have also been concerns expressed around impact on libraries, impact on sports centres, all those types of areas. On the 19th, the cabinet secretary said that he would be happy to speak about local authority budgets. Obviously, in terms of this budget scrutiny for 2020, local government is receiving a real terms increase. That is an issue that other committees will be looking at in relation to scrutiny with the cabinet secretary for finance and local government. I am not going to underestimate that there are pressures everywhere, but it is an issue of what choices, particularly individual local authorities, but also different tiers of government take. As we are presenting the budget here, you are seeing that, as you said, a lot of it is very similar to levels last year, but that was a 10 per cent increase for culture. We, as a Scottish Government, at our level of government, made a decision, despite the pressures that we had and the real terms cuts that we have had over a period since 2010-11, that we would make sure that we provided a 10 per cent increase. That was a £6.6 million increase for Creative Scotland in particular, and that has been transferred, as you said, into this year's funding. Do not underestimate that that is a conscious choice. You also identified that all that does is help to plug a gap from national lottery that Creative Scotland has, so that Creative Scotland's overall spend does not necessarily increase. It is allowing them to maintain what they have been doing. However, I think that we should look at what has been happening at local government, because I think that that is very important. In terms of partnership, a lot of funding tends to be in relation to, if you get funding from one aspect, you can then have match funding from different other areas. It can be quite fragile to recognise that, but I also do not want to perpetuate some kind of idea that somehow culture has been decimated at local authority level. If you look at the figures, I would encourage the committee to look at the public figures that are available and what is happening in that area. You mentioned libraries, but compared to the rest of the UK, there has been much less reduction in Scotland than anywhere else. I suppose that the big impact was in Labour run 5 in 2017, when there was a considerable number. I think that it was upwards of 16. I think that there is another three this year, but that was the major cut in terms of libraries, because in Scotland it has been a handful ever since. Again, because of the conscious decision by this Government, we have maintained our non-national library funding to help to slick the Scottish Library's information service. We have been transforming and helping to support digitalisation, transforming public libraries from the limited funds that we have to help them meet the 21st century. I think that that has helped the Scottish Library to be ahead of the curve and recognised elsewhere. To get to your point, and I know that that is quite a long answer, convener, but I think that it is really, really important. If you look at the provisional outturn for 2017-18 and you look at the budget estimates for 2018-19, if you look overall at the figures, remember that if you look at the lines for local government, they put culture and heritage, library services, tourism, recreation and sport altogether. That is what comes under the term culture and related services. If you look at the overall figures, you will see between the provisional outturn from 2016-17 to 2017-18 that there was a 3 per cent reduction, and then budget estimates between 2017-18 and 2018-19 would have a 2 per cent reduction. If you break that down to the different areas, if you look at library services, there was in terms of the budget estimates between 2017-18 and 2018-19, a 1 per cent increase. If you look at culture and heritage, it was flat line. If you look at recreation and sport, that goes down. That is not part of my responsibility, that is the sport. If you look at tourism, in terms of promotional events increased but also significantly by 15 per cent, but other tourism decreased by 18 per cent in terms of provisional outturn. If you look at the next year's projection into budget estimates, there is a 10 per cent reduction. If you look at the grouping that comes under culture and related services, it looks as if there is a reduction by 2 per cent, but within that it is tourism that has had the major reduction. I am not disputing that there is a challenge there, but it is worth taking the time, not the time that I have here, to look at that within that. I do not want some kind of narrative that somehow says that there has been a reduction culture spend in Scotland. When we as a Government have managed to, and it is recognised internationally and across the UK, we have managed to protect our budget at a national level, and indeed last year increased it by 10 per cent. Even if you look at the real-terms reduction that we, as a Government, have had since 2010-11 nationally, even local government—because local government value culture and understand it and want to try to protect it—has not been comparative to what we have had at a national level. I am not saying that there is not a challenge and that there will be a challenge going forward, but let us do it on our evidence base, as opposed to what people's perceptions are. I am really sorry that that was a long answer, but you did write to me on that issue, and I think that it is a key aspect. The other thing that I was going to ask about was that you had written to us about the local authority conveners group that that had not been meeting. I would say that you can point to examples within my own region, the refurbishment of the Carnegie library museum, which is a fantastic project, and a huge investment from all the partners involved. I recognise that there is investment in culture, and local authorities are making positive decisions, but I do not think that you recognise that there are challenges. I do not think that it can be denied that it is an area that is vulnerable. It does not have the same protection as other services that local authorities have to deliver on a statutory basis. Has the local authority conveners group convened? If it has not been convened, what do you think the issues are and why that has not been operational? I want to acknowledge that when you have pressure budgets, those areas that are not statutory, it takes strong leadership both at local government and national government to try to protect those budgets. Our officials have been trying to agree with COSLA the setting up of this conveners group again. Remember, the last time it happened was at my initiative, because the last time I remember going to a meeting of the community's group and I asked the 32 local conveners there how many were responsible for culture, only three were. The rest could be because it was grouped in with housing and other areas. A lot of it is determined by the way that COSLA organises itself. It has internally rearranged how it runs its budget streams and who are the leads for different areas or different responsibilities. I think that it is taking time for COSLA to settle after the elections from 2017 into what its internal structures are. I understand that perhaps the lead for this area has been maternity leave, so they might be waiting until that resolves and she returns. I do not want to say anything as to what the reasons might be. We are keen for it to happen, but I cannot make them do something that they have got to do at their own pace and time. However, if we can communicate to them that the committee thinks that it is a good thing that that happens, I will be very keen for it to establish. A lot of the issues that we are seeing are really place-based. I will give another example. There are city deals. I am very pleased that there has been a strong recognition of the need for culture and tourism spend in the city deals. I remember that that does not appear in my budget. It will appear in the budgets where city deals will be in terms of infrastructure in other areas. However, it is really important that we have good relationships with local government in those areas. I tend to have more bilateral relations. Dundee is clearly in terms of the leader of Dundee Council. I met with the culture lead for Aberdeen fairly recently. Whenever I am on my visits, I try to make sure that I am meeting with the culture lead for those different areas. I am very pleased that we look at Tays cities in terms of its deal, the Edinburgh one as well, the place partnership, the impact concert hall, which we are also helping to fund. The strong culture and tourism spend in the city deals will not appear in part of my budget. However, we need to have good relationships with local authorities to ensure that we have a common understanding of what would really make a difference in that area. Thank you very much. We have got quite a few members still to get through, so if I could politely ask for succinct answers. I would like to turn to the external affairs budget. There have obviously been some significant increases around international relations that I would certainly welcome. When the committee recently visited Brussels, it was very clear from Scottish Government officials that there was going to be a need to essentially spend more to stand still given the situation with Brexit. How is the increased budget allocated to the Brussels office going to be evaluated in that context? It would be unfortunate to reach this time next year, and there to be a perception that there has been no added value from the added budget given the external factors. What we very clearly heard during our visit is that there simply going to need to be more spend to continue doing what we are already doing. In terms of level 4 in Brussels, we have an increase from £1.6 million to £2 million. We are also outlining our spending in other offices. You have seen that in Paris, for example, which is now a budget line that has come out of the European strategy budget. That now exists. You refer to the increase in the external affairs budget. I would like to welcome it as spend on operational issues, but I think that we have to recognise that the spend and the increase if you look at the line, its external affairs advice and policy of £6 million, is actually a recognition of the change that the Parliament and the committee has asked for from overall budgets that we are looking at total operating costs and corporate costs. Staffing issues for that whole portfolio and every single portfolio that we are now doing is seeing that that would be more explicit in terms of budget lines, so that is what that is. I am afraid that, unlike the daily mail, Adam Talkins, who is on the finance committee, obviously does not realise that that change in budgeting lines means that you have actually got staffing more upfront, as well as the contribution to the overall government cost. In terms of our spend, there is variation between the lines in terms of your point about capacity because the external affairs budget, apart from international development and humanitarian aid, is a delivery line for delivering services. That is staffing. Clearly, we have not just started working on some of the issues about leaving the EU. That has been a huge focus for the members of staff in our area and responsibility for some years now, but that is now more explicit. I think that the other point that the committee was interested in is business plans. One of the things that we are going to be doing is developing the business plans for each of the offices, and that will also be published at some point. I know that that will be an interest for the committee, but that is not immediate, but they are in preparation. On the point about evaluation of the Brussels office in particular—it applies across the network of offices, but how will the Government change the evaluation of how much value for money is given the context of potentially post-Brexit UK? Brussels was always important in trying to influence decisions that were made by decision takers. The shift in leaving the EU means that both the UK and Scotland's Brussels office will still have an absolutely vital and important role. It is just that they will not necessarily be able to be influencing decisions of ministers that will be taking part as members of the council, but they will end up being more lobbying in terms of trying to persuade. That is more difficult and more challenging, but we know that whatever happens in terms of the eventualities, we need to have a strong presence. We have improved and increased our representation there. I think that the committee, I hope, has visited and has met the team that is there. It might be a change of focus of what they do and more of the impact and the influence that they can have. On the evaluation of that, do we build the relationships that we have? I have always said that this portfolio is about relationships, in fact, in culture and in this area. It is the strength of how you evaluate your relationships. It is not necessarily in financial terms, but in policy terms. When we look at the business plans, that is why I am saying that, in terms of those areas, it is how you evaluate the power of influence and relationships is not necessarily in monetary terms. To me, that is how we want to evaluate it. One relatively minor point of clarification would be useful. There is a decrease in the budget allocated to the office in Washington DC. Is that presumably proportionate with the fact that the Canadian office is in a separate budget line? Yes, that is correct. Just finally, the Scottish Connections budget line that is now there. Could you explain that a little bit from the brief description that I have seen of it already? It was not entirely clear what exactly that was referring to. Some of the language around it sounded like the kind of things that SDI, for example, is already doing and would be allocated for elsewhere. One of the things that we are doing, particularly with our offices, is to make sure that there is a greater synergy and connection and again value that we can get in working with SDI in terms of some of the activities. Scottish Connections will, for example, have about 140,000 supporting strategies to do with engagement with a global network of organisations that we want to work with. That again helps our cultural diplomacy, our networking activities internationally. Importantly, half a million of that is the international marketing team. That was in another budget elsewhere in terms of the work that they do. Scotland is now familiar with how we are trying to bring together University of Scotland, the private sector, tourism, SDI and a collective promotion for Scotland, but also attraction of talent, investment and so on. That is what that budget by and large is doing. Alexander Stewart, you also had questions in this particular line. We have already discussed the ideas of the development of the footprint of offices across, and Rosgill has already indicated the one in Washington and we have the one in Paris and the one in China. They seem to come from different lines within the budget, cabinet secretary. Some seem to come out of the international affairs, whereas our ones in Dublin, in Berlin and London seem to come out of the finance economies budget. Can we have some clarity as to why there is the differential between that? If I want to be pragmatic, because in pressure budgets we try to make sure that we work in partnership. The focus for our international offices is to encourage people to live, work, study and invest in Scotland, ensure that we have good lines of communication with other Governments and key policy areas. It is effective use of Government resources. That is the rationale as to why that has been put together. It is also a good way of us working together in terms of our promotion, but there is investment from different lines in support, for example, in Dublin. We also fund in relation to that. It is effectively getting best value for the public purse by bringing together budgets for best effect. Obviously, the run-up to Brexit has been lots of discussion about what those offices are trying to achieve and ensuring that we still have the captured footprint and we are still negotiating and making sure that Scotland's presence is being managed. Can I ask about the external affairs budget and how it is addressing the outcomes that Brexit may give us and the opportunities and the challenges that face us? The outcomes that Brexit might bring us. If anybody in this room can predict what that will be tomorrow or the next day or never next week, that would be welcome. In the spirit, I think, with which it has been asked. We do not know. That is the whole point. Going back to the answer to Ross Greer, we have to make sure that we have the strength, the presence and the relationships to be able to either mitigate the worst disasters of this or just find and navigate a way through it. That is what we have to do. We have a very good team to do that. I think that it is important to reflect that we do also work positively and constructively with the UK Government, where we can in different places, including—I was recently in the Netherlands and I met with the UK ambassador there as well as the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. I happened to be with him the day that Theresa May pulled the vote on the meaningful vote, which was a bit embarrassing for them as well as us to see what was happening in relation to the UK Government. When we do work with others, the UK embassy was with me that meeting. In terms of what we are doing, we want to make sure that we have opportunities-identified areas. I think that some of the work, particularly in our Berlin office, we are seeing the benefits of that, particularly on the investment and the business connections that we can make. We are already seeing—although it is quite a fledgling network—the practical operation of having somebody to help to co-ordinate across different agencies. I think that it has been very productive. Thank you. Kenneth, did you want to come in on this topic? Thanks very much, convener. Apologies for coming in a few minutes late. I think that it is really fascinating the international relations aspect of this paper, and I do welcome the substantial increase in the budget of around 40 per cent. I notice that you are keen to further intensify our engagement with our European neighbours and with the US, Canada, China, India, Pakistan and Japan, with the focus on education, business and culture, as you say in the paper. I am just curious. I realise that you cannot spread yourself too thin, but why those specific countries, for example, as opposed to Australia, where there are very strong links with Scotland, or even growing economies—Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, South Africa and Nigeria? I am just wondering why those specific countries have been around to the focus along with European neighbours? I think that in Brazil and Russia, there are certain political issues that would predicate our concerns about some of the issues. Seriously about Brazil and many other countries? Well, I said Brazil. I mean, in terms of, most of this has been in relation to, I suppose, some of it was inherited in terms of, you know, there was always a, you know, when we came in, the previous administration had offices in Washington and in Beijing and also in Brussels. What we have sort of sought to do is to try and identify where we can expand, reflecting our economic opportunities. It is not necessarily always reflecting, I suppose, a historic diaspora, for example, Australia. There are economic opportunities. I have always wanted to do more in Australia, but again, as you are saying, one of the criticisms of the previous committee here was, do not spread yourself too thin and we do have presence, SDI presence, but it is not necessarily Government presence. Members, this budget that we have got is about, I suppose, Government-led Government-to-Government relations and also some of the co-ordination aspects. So SDI, for example, do operate in Australia and they operate, I think that they have got now, I think that it is over 13 now, different locations, but they are always looking and changing where they might be. China is quite clear in terms of the opportunities. It is now a top five investor. We have now got, and again, part of the work that we have been doing as a Government is trying to achieve the direct air link that happened with the Hainan-Edenborough-Beijing link last year, which is again very, very successful. So there are obvious ones with the US and China and Brussels. With Canada, we think that there is a lot of policy operation, so a lot of the decisions are about where we might have interests. I think that some of the issues around climate change, working with rural remote communities, some of the agenda that is there, we think we can work on. There is probably untapped potential, so I think that that is the decision there. There are different decisions for each one. For example, in Dublin, we know that the Government-to-Government aspects are critically important and there has been a complete step change, I think, in our Scottish-Irish governmental relations, particularly since 2015. That was a deliberate decision by the Irish Government and ourselves. In terms of the exchange between ministers, for example, that has definitely increased. That is helping us. We have seen it already in terms of the operation of Dublin office economic aspects, but also in a lot of policy areas. There have been good exchanges to develop, so that explains that one. In Germany, particularly, there is obviously a strong business opportunity. France has always had that, particularly food and drink, massively important, but also in terms of education and culture. We have got a co-operation in the area. We are quite discreet and distinct within each of those as to where we can maximise it. However, we have an overarching international framework that governs all of our international engagement and what we are doing. However, it is about making sure that Scotland has a strong presence where we can, that we have to be quite selective and discreet as to where the opportunities are. However, in renewable energies in particular and in some of our areas that we can exchange in policy terms, we are now an invite of choice for different areas. However, we are now looking, for example, at our development of our Arctic policy framework. That is not just necessarily geographic. It allows us to exchange some of our experiences in terms of our renewable energy, for example areas that are climate change tackling with other countries. I cannot describe our whole international engagement strategy policy in that answer, but that is why we have made the decisions that we have. However, you are right that we cannot be everywhere and that means sometimes making hard decisions. I cannot understand your reticence about Russia, but China is notorious for repression of religious and ethnic minorities. I mean, I would have thought that if there was concerns about one country in terms of human rights, there would certainly be concerns about others. In terms of Arctic policy, I was going to come on to that. Who would that include to Russia being the biggest Arctic nation, obviously? Does that include the Faroe Islands? Does it include Iceland and the Scandinavian countries? You have said here, just to quote for the record, obviously, because it is written down here, that you say that it will highlight the extensive links already in existence between our communities, businesses and civic society in the help-shape of Scotland's relationship with our Arctic partners for years to come. In terms of the obviously different areas, there is the Arctic Circle itself, the Arctic Circle Forum and the Arctic Assembly. There are different bodies and organisations that exist within this area. We hosted the first ever Arctic Circle Forum in the UK just last year, again, as the instigation of my department. I think that it was the invitation of the former president of Iceland. I attended in Reykjavik last year. We were well received in terms of connections, and that is why I think that it is a very helpful forum. We were quite clear that Scotland should not describe ourselves as apologising for the need to be part of the Arctic. We are welcome near neighbours and they want us to be involved. That was the strong message, but you are right in terms of the range. I was there for two and a half days, and I think that I had 12 bilaterals. To give you a range, we met with the Faroes at the West Ork Nordic Council. There were different representations in terms of Finland. I am talking about all the different people that we met, including Icelandic ministers. If you think about the next forum that will be in South Korea and the next in China, the interests in some of those issues are beyond. Some of them are quite hard economics, so Russia, for example, when we heard from the Russian former Russian ambassador to the US, clearly there is strong interest both from Russia and, indeed, from Japan in how you open up trade routes. That brings with itself its environmental concerns. One of the things that we need to do and think through is in terms of how we make sure what we have to offer. We have done a lot of marine spatial planning in relation to how we operate oil and gas, wind turbines and fishing in the same very restricted area. A lot of people are looking at what other lessons that can be learned there. In looking at the Arctic, it is not just, as I said, a geographic, it is wider, because it helps us in policy areas to help to connect with people who are all wrestling with some of the same challenges and interests. I met with the Premier of the Northwest Territories to hear him talk about the impact of climate change, meaning that houses have been built in frozen tundra when the tundra is no longer frozen and, all of a sudden, people are watching the television and houses are collapsing. It is a huge, I think, a very immediate and very personal direct. Sorry to interrupt, but I am just concerned. Annabelle Ewing. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Turning to initiatives to be pursued further to the new culture strategy, which I think is still being worked on, I know that there was mention of the launch of the Cultural Youth Experience Fund, which I think is a very exciting prospect, and that is building on, of course, important work that carried out last year during the year of young people. So I would just really be keen to have a bit more information and update about what the budget line for the fund will be, when it will be operational, how can people go about accessing it, what kind of activities will be covered and, of course, to make a pitch from my constituency of Cowdenbeath. I am not sure I can read the Cowdenbeath bit, but in relation to the budget line it will be in the other arts line. We have not announced the amount that that will be as yet, we are still finalising that. We are going to do pilots on that. We have identified probably the best way of doing that is to work with the creative learning networks that already exist, and particularly working with schools in more financially deprived areas to make sure that they can have the opportunities that others might not have. We are also conscious that, as I think we have discussed in this committee before, transport issues need to be addressed in a lot of these areas. That is the prohibitive aspect. Following points that were made by the committee, I think by Ross Greer, we are not just focusing on primary, we are also looking at early secondary as well. That is helpful. When do we expect to see some activity then on the ground, further to this? Operational from the 2020 budget? From the 2020 budget. When the money becomes available, we will spend it. That is really helpful. Obviously, plans are still on going, but I would find it very helpful if I could meet with your officials a relevant time to have a better understanding of what concretely is going to happen under this and how I can do my best for my constituency to see how we can marry the funds with potential activity in Caercombeath constituency. I do not want to make promises for one MSP, but I have 129, so I have a lot of questions. I put in the first bid, so the early birds, etc. It would be helpful to, perhaps, I can write in the first instance to obtain further information. A brief question, if I may, on the same area of activity. I note that there is to be continued support for the system of Scotland's orchestra projects in communities, including—that was why I was focusing, because the word is including—Governhill, Rapp, Loughtorian and D. Does that mean that there is a potential consideration of expanding system? That is a matter to speak to the system about. The funding this year is £850,000 from the other arts budget. We have helped them in their work in making sure that they can be sustainable in their expansion. We have helped them historically over a period of time. That, I think, reflects the importance of good relationships with local government, because a lot of those initiatives have come from local government managing to also, and I think that if you look at, particularly, Aberdeen is a good example, very strong private funding. This is a partnership area, and it is about places themselves saying that we want this. A lot of our support is capacity building for this, as well as operational spend. Can I check the line on local government funding that you gave to Claire Baker? She said that it was a real-terms increase, but Spice says that it is a 3.4 per cent cut in 1920. I refer you to the evidence that was given by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Finance to the relevant committees. I refer you to Spice. I am just saying that, in terms of the real-terms increase, that is the information. But Spice says that it is a 3.4 per cent cut, Cabinet Secretary. These debates will happen. If the issues about local government spending on culture and tourism in related areas are an issue for this committee, the new budget process allows the committee, I think, in a debate. I agree. I entirely agree with that. My point was that you said that it was a real-terms increase for local government finance. Spice, which is the thing that we as MSPs depend on, says a 3.4 per cent cut. I am just trying to clarify what it is. In terms of ensuring that we get best value for money, there is a lot of spending there, particularly around areas around social care. It is really important that if we are going to make sure that we maximise the combination of what we can do to help support areas, and that is a major one, particularly in relation to, I do believe, that health and social care, the integration of that and the spend of that, the delivery of that by local government, is something that is part of local government spending. Right. That is probably it. Do not disagree at all. I am just saying that there is a... Okay, so the Government does not agree with Spice. I think we have established that. Two questions I just wanted to ask. Historic Environment Scotland has had an increase in their income generated from £57.1 to £59.7 million. What has happened there that has allowed their income to increase? They have been very effective. Is it visitors? Is it just more visitors going to their properties? Yes. One of the ways to manage our budget is to work with Historic Environment Scotland, to work with them when they have increased income to enable them to be able to spend their income, but also to be realistic about what we are going to do to help other parts of the budget. I would say that the increase in visitor numbers has been really quite extraordinary and very strong. A lot of it is related to, again, film tourism in other areas. Outlanders have had a massive effect, et cetera. What I would say, and I think that this is a point of caution, is that they are seeing flatlining, as are other parts of tourism. We have had a big increase in recent years. One of the things that we need to be very careful of is spend. We understand that this is something that we need to look closely at. Not just in Historic Environment Scotland, their shops, et cetera, but in other tourist attraction areas, disposable discretionary spend by some tourists is actually flattening. Although that is a healthy position just now, that is a good position. It is not without its challenges. Across all—most of the portfolio spend in my budget goes on staffing by the national companies' collections, for example, and the pressures for the budget. It is a good thing that we have got a reasonable settlement on staffing increases. However, the pay increase is another pressure that VisitScotland has, and indeed all the others will have to accommodate from— No, indeed. Specifically, on Historic Environment Scotland, on the income generated, which has increased, do you have any kind of breakdown on, is that across the board in geographic terms—I mean, I know when the castle has just gone through the roof, but what about the more outlying areas of Scotland? Do you know how they would see that? I am happy to get Historic Environment Scotland to the right to the committee. I can probably give you a summary from what—because I have asked the same questions—they can give you more detail. The more geographically remote to the centres where it is incoming tourists that spend a great deal, domestic tourists do not necessarily spend as much. Some different nationalities spend more than others, for example, but there is an issue about people then travelling elsewhere. We want people to disperse and spend elsewhere, but I would reassure you that, again, because of some of the fantastic promotion by VisitScotland and elsewhere, particular areas have been very strong. Again, a lot of it related to—didn't castle, for example, if you saw the figures for that, extraordinary, but again that is part of Castle Leoc, Outlander, et cetera. However, I think that in terms of detail for that, they would probably—I will ask them to— Totally. That's entirely fine. The other one I just wanted to briefly ask was, I can't find anything in the budget on Glasgow School of Art. Have you made any provision in the next financial year for Glasgow School of Art? There has been spend in previous budgets for Glasgow School of Art. There's no request from the institution themselves. Remember, it is the Scottish Funding Council and the Higher Education Minister who would be lead on the institutional aspect of it. The reconstruction costs of the building. They've not asked for any funding from that. In the next financial year at all. They have said that they don't require—if you look at their public comments, they have said that they anticipate that they would not request public funds for that purpose. We have provided funding for support, for example, for CCA. For example, in December, we managed for my budget and in each other budgets to find more money to help them in their operational costs. Funding for Glasgow School of Art, even on an institutional basis, in terms of what it might need for the building, would not necessarily come from my budget. It would come from the higher education. You are a capsaic for culture, obviously, by definition. You have a very close interest in this issue. The funding that we had and were provided with the dreadful case of the first fire actually went via Funding Council. Sorry, just to be clear, they haven't asked for anything in the next financial year that was so far. Not from my budget? No, not from the Government, though. Well, I can't speak for the Funding Council, but not from my budget. Would it be possible to write back to the committee on whether there's been any request to the Government in general terms? We've had an ongoing interest in this issue, obviously. I'll ask Richard Lochhead, who's the relevant minister, to write to the committee. Thank you very much. Stuart McMillan. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary, and to apologise for being a wee bit late this morning. Some of the areas that I wanted to cover already have been by colleagues, but on the issue of the lottery funding, the budget line is decreasing. I know that there has been an issue that's been around for some time, and I generally don't know if that issue has been closed off or not. That was the situation regarding the monies that were taken to help fund the London Olympics, and there was the issue of monies to then be repaid back to the lottery. I don't know if you can provide some clarity on that. I cannot, off the top of the head, give you information about the operation of the London Olympics from 2012. I do recall, however, attending the joint ministerial committee at Westminster that involved the Welsh, Northern Irish and ourselves. That was a big hot topic. I remember at ministerial committees then in relation to what had happened. I can't recall in terms of the resolution of that. It was the one issue that went to dispute resolution at that time, but this is some historic position, so I would need to find out more about what happened with that issue. If that's possible, we're just very to the committee. Yeah. It'll be helpful. Okay, that's good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Jamie Greene, I believe you wanted to come back in. Yes, if you don't mind. Thank you, convener. Cymru, we've talked a lot about culture and external affairs, but I'd quite like to focus on the other third and very important area around tourism. Tourism accounts for, as you are no doubt aware, over £11 billion to the Scottish economy. Estimates put up at around 5 per cent of our GVA. Indeed, there are two and a half tourists in Scotland at any given time for every person that lives here, so it's a substantial and important part of your portfolio. Do you think that people might be surprised that when they look at the overall budget that the Government only provides £45 million of assistance to it, which is a drop of 25 per cent in the last four years, given that visitor numbers are increasing to record highs, there was a 15 per cent increase in overseas visitor numbers last year. The numbers in terms of your allocation of your budget and the overall budget that you're given towards that industry is reducing, but the number of people coming to Scotland and spending money is going up. Do you think that that's a marriage that works? I'm not sure I actually recognise the 25 per cent reduction. In 2014-15, the budget was over £60 million in real terms, and this year our forecast next year will be £45 million. I'll look at—obviously, the 2014-15 is before my time as minister in this area, but I know from the time that I've been in this post that I've managed to buy it. I'm not saying that there hasn't been some reduction, but it's not—for the last three years—yes, which, bearing in mind, when I'm protected part of the portfolio within Government, I think that that's a very strong position to take, and it's been welcomed by the chair of VisitScotland, who's very welcome to the position. In terms of the spend, we've managed to increase spend for tourism in terms of now we've got the rural tourism infrastructure fund, which is spending, in terms of helping pressured areas, in terms of the operational budget for VisitScotland. We've managed to have that as a flat line. I'll be straight with the committee. There are pressures there in terms of funding staff increases, in terms of the pay aspects, and that will be a challenge for them, but I don't recognise—I will come back to the committee in relation to what happened in 2014-15, but in terms of looking forward—this is the scrutiny of my budget for 2020—I think that we've done a reasonable job in maintaining that position. Your overall point about—yes, but obviously there needs to be more spend in this than—of course, if you want to champion the case for more spend in tourism, I'd absolutely welcome that. Again, I'll be realistic as part of my role is to make sure that, in other portfolios, we maximise the spend on things that can help tourism. The things that can help tourism is the roll-out in relation to superfast broadband, again not the direct responsibility of the Scottish Governments Reserve to Westminster, but substantial spend in that, which will also help to have increasingly digitised world of promotion for tourism, transport infrastructure, marina, for example, marina investment at Fort William and other areas. You're right in terms of the economic contribution to sector. One of the things that we've worked with the industry on with the tourism leadership group is this document, which is the economic contribution of the sector, and I absolutely agree with you that in terms of the reach, particularly the geographic reach, but also the importance, we can't underestimate it. I would also say if you look at it again, and it's worth looking at the aspects of the city deals that are coming through on tourism, not in my budget but from elsewhere, I can persuade, I can influence, I can work with local authorities, they are the ones that are coming forward with the asks. If you look at the development of the, well, it's in the development of the Stirling and Club Manager one, but also the Asia growth deal, really important, for example. Some of the funding that we can support might come from my budget, but we can help leverage elsewhere and we can work in partnership. Some of the stuff from south of Scotland, for example, in particular, it's a great combination between Forest Enterprise Scotland and ourselves, maximising budgets to improve mountain biking, forest trails, investment, so you're right. Would I like more money for tourism? Absolutely, but part of my job is to make sure that we lever across government, so don't underestimate, and it's something that we can try and pull together. I'm keen that we do that, is how we've managed to leverage in funding from other portfolios to help tourism. On that, I totally understand your situation. You're working in an unprotected portfolio area, and trying to spread it out across your different areas of portfolio, but tourism is less than 20 per cent of the budget that you are given, and you choose to spend less than 20 per cent of your budget on tourism, so that's maybe the additional point that I'm making. The majority of that budget goes solely on Visit Scotland, so whilst there is cross-fertilisation from other government initiatives that will boost tourism, I accept those, and that they are also welcome, it is a fact that your entire tourism budget is swallowed up by a single agency, and that has remained relatively flat over the last couple of years, given, as I said, that tourism is 5 per cent of Scotland's GVA, so it just doesn't seem to feel intrinsically like the appropriate attention and financial support that the industry needs to grow in the way that it's growing. If you ask the industry, they might want more funding, but they're very pleased at what I've managed to do with the budget that we have and the fact that I have managed to protect that, but Historic Environment Scotland has just heard the questions from Tavish Scott. I've got a huge contribution to make to the tourism sector and investment in that area, and again, I've managed to get capital funding for them as well in terms of the areas that are helping improving the visitor experience. For example, the Doon Castle had to move their shop, and they had to invest to expand that because of the increasing numbers. Tourism is everybody's business, so therefore it's my job to make sure that every part of government can help to invest and do that. Would I like it all to be on my budget? Yes, I would, but that's not the reality of where it is, but you're right in saying that I have to make decisions within my own budget, but if you want me to put more money into tourism, I'm going to have to cut some other area. I'm not sure that the committee may recommend saying that we think that you spend less on one thing and more on another, but that's what the committee does. I've got to make my judgments, and I think that, by and large, we've got good healthy visitor numbers, more importantly, experience, but also what VisitScotland can do is anticipate the future. They've just done a report on the demands of the next generation or this generation of young people in terms of expectations and experiences. I also convene a high-level leadership group on tourism that brings together the tourism that leads for Scottish Enterprise, Hansel Islands Enterprise and will also do the South of Scotland, working together with the industry itself so that we can make sure that we can work as leverage across government to make sure that the spend is appropriate where it needs to be. Just in conclusion, the budget document for 2019-20 commits to publish a new culture strategy for Scotland, and that publication was supposed to happen at the end of 2018. Can you update us on where we're going to see it? We're working on it in 2019. I must say that the response and the engagement is probably one of the most comprehensive in terms of government consultations on strategies or developments. There were over 280 responses, but they weren't just responses to the questions that were asked. They were really thoughtful and in-depth, and to respect the quality of the contributions that we've been given. We're taking our time to make sure that we're giving them full consideration. Thanks very much. We look forward to seeing it, and our committee will certainly take a great interest in it when it's published. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for coming to give evidence today, and we shall now move into private session.