Seòmar agus comataidhean

Fantastic—I got the pronunciation correct. That is an apposite and timely example of the approach that has been taken in Scotland. It is not to diverge in the sense that we wish to disapply or have significantly worse standards; it is that, de minimis, we want to have the same standards, but they could be higher. Incidentally, that approach was open to the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government prior to our being taken out of the European Union against our wishes.

The short answer is yes. Expanding on that, it behoves us all to support those who are delivering this—whether that is the management of museums or other cultural organisations—to reimagine the cultural recovery that we are all in favour of. We should not simply seek to go back to where we were pre-Covid; we should realise that much has changed. You made the point that we are enjoying and consuming culture in ways that we did not do before, and that should make a difference to our thinking about our policy and budgetary approach. We are alive to that and in the middle of that process. When we come back to the committee at the stage when budgets have been agreed and processes have been gone through, I will be more than content to share with you and reflect on the extent to which we have been guided by an awareness of those changes.

In passing, I note that I have been keen to say to civil service colleagues and cultural organisations that we are not the only people in the cultural and arts world who are going through this. Every other country in the world is having to grapple with the impact of the pandemic and many countries have experienced a similar impact, with a lack of public access to facilities, a drop in income and concern about how one recovers or intends to recover. I have been keen to impress on everybody who is involved that we should be trying to learn lessons from elsewhere as well as from here. There is not a monopoly on common sense in Scotland, so I am keen to work out the best way in which we can learn and emulate best practice from elsewhere. Given that we are in this process, I will be happy to feed back to the committee on what we have and have not learned, to ensure that we can do this as well as we can.

That is a well-timed question. I welcome Mr Ruskell to the committee. I think that he is aware of the announcement that the Scottish Government made this week on funding for Sistema, which has been warmly welcomed by that organisation. I am sure that all members know intimately what Sistema does and how it literally transforms the learning experience of young people but, for anybody who is watching the proceedings, I note that it is an excellent example of a primarily culturally focused intervention that indisputably has an impact on the more general quality of people’s lives and, hopefully, as a knock-on consequence, on their opportunities in life.

Mr Ruskell’s point is, in its own way, an optimal example of the point that I made in my sneak preview, which you have kindly invited me to give even more insight on—forgive me, but I will have to resist that. I reiterate the point, because Sistema is a good example of a project that has an impact across Government responsibility. I am keen that the benefits are understood among colleagues whose primary responsibility might be health, education or justice. I am sure that many of the benefits are understood, because we are parliamentarians representing a constituency or a region, so we are aware of the impact that some projects have. However, I genuinely hope that mainstreaming that thinking across Government will help to deliver on the aspirations that we have in the culture strategy and the programme for government. Sistema is possibly one of the best examples of that.

Forgive me, but I am not going to show any more leg on the creative recovery strategy. I am sure that we will come back to that and I hope that it will be worthy of the ambition, because it should be.

I should first declare an interest, having attended Broughton high school, which is a specialist music school in Scotland’s state system. I was a normal school pupil and not in the music unit, but I had the benefit of being around people who were. In general, the school had a tremendous musical aspect in the education of pupils, which encouraged some of us, me included, to play for the Edinburgh secondary schools orchestra. I do not claim to have been a tremendous violin player—I was at the back of the second violins—but it was great to be part of that.

I am sharing with you my personal experience to show that I understand how transformational music in the broadest sense is for young people and the importance of encouraging music tuition and its take-up. I am delighted that, in its programme for government, the Scottish Government included commitments on that, and that those have been and are being taken forward.

That is another example of the cross-Government approach between culture and education. The committee needs to know that I am keen on supporting that. My officials know that I am keen to understand how the commitments on which the Scottish Government was elected are delivered. I want music tuition to go from strength to strength. I want take-up to be possible for kids everywhere, and not just for those who have the good fortune, as I happened to have, of being in a school with a particularly strong musical tradition. There are places where that is less the case. We have good organisations such as El Sistema that deliver among the most deprived communities, but there are other communities that perhaps fall between those positions. We have to try to ensure that we impact on young people’s lives as best we can right across the country.

It is a good kind of question. We could probably come up with a list of questions like it, against which a joined-up approach could be measured. I am not trying to introduce a whole series of new metrics—I am looking at the speed with which my civil service colleagues here are writing notes about my suggestion. However, the issue that Donald Cameron raises is a case in point. I suspect that, if people furth of the culture and arts world are encouraged to open up pathways so that people can get the benefits of our cultural institutions, some will be quicker than others to do that. To what extent does one have to pull and to what extent does one have to push for that to succeed?

We are talking about a cultural change—in the small c sense—in how we see culture. With hand on heart, I cannot honestly say that I know exactly how that will turn out. However, I know that we do not have an alternative, because we need to encourage kids, particularly those from deprived communities, to learn that cultural institutions and offerings are for them as much as they are for anybody else.

Creative Scotland has deduced from some of its research a statistic that only 30 per cent of people know how to access information on cultural events. That is probably surprising for those of us who go to such events and who know where to look. If we take that at face value, we have to accept the profound disconnect with a significant part of society. That is why we need a joined-up approach, with doctors prescribing or encouraging such activity, or schools helping kids to go to places that they would never normally go, instilling in them the sense that it is worth going back, and encouraging them to go with their parents. As I said, there is no alternative. That is another example of where good thinking on the committee’s part will encourage us to think about how we can deliver that across Government.

I would be happy to do the entire evidence session on that subject because we should all be very encouraged by and excited about it.

The funding is the remit of Screen Scotland, which is funded through Creative Scotland, which is in turn funded by the Scottish Government, and we lay great store on what is happening. As an organisation, we are very enthused, as I am personally, about the quality of Screen Scotland, what it is currently doing, what it is able to do with the resources that it has and what we are planning to do.

I have numbers in front of me that tell me that we have been funding production growth—allowing more film and television projects to be undertaken in Scotland—since 2015 and that £9.9 million has been funded. The estimated economic benefit to Scotland as a return is £140 million. Therefore, the benefit of the Government encouraging that particular sector is massive.

Studios were mentioned. Ten years ago, we did not have a single one, and now we have facilities at Bath Road in Edinburgh, in West Lothian—being used for the second series of “Good Omens”—and in Cumbernauld, which are being used for “Outlander”. We are very pleased that the facilities in Glasgow that are used by the BBC are remaining in the BBC structure. We also have the Kelvin hall, into which the Scottish Government has, for good reasons, put a lot of money in order to be able to produce there.

Notwithstanding that we now have those sites, which are being used and are booked back to back, it is hugely encouraging that we are getting more interest and a demand for further facilities. We absolutely need to grab that opportunity with both hands.

Some aspects are perhaps less obvious than those that we might read about in the newspapers. We might read of another big-ticket film taking place in Scotland—I am looking forward to as much of that as possible—but understanding what happens below that, and what the Scottish Government and our agencies can do, is going to be key in ensuring that the benefit of that development is realised as widely as possible.

In that context, the most exciting prize of all, in some respects, is in skills and training. The Scottish Government puts funding in, through Screen Scotland and other funding routes, to training in different skills. That is another example of where the Government needs to be as joined-up as it can be.

Skills are being developed through the work of Screen Scotland. Edinburgh Napier University has a creative centre, which I reflect on because I had a conversation about it this week with the principal, that is developing skills that are mission critical for the screen sector. Edinburgh College is developing craft skills—we cannot overlook this bit, as it is really important—so that, when productions come to Scotland, we have people who are able, for example, to build the sets. That means that we need brickies and plasterers who can work in a film environment. It is very well-paid work, but it needs people who have that kind of experience.

I had the good fortune of being able to visit the Bath Road studio during the filming of “The Rig”. The set was incredible. It was huge—that is one of the advantages of the facility. I was watching a helicopter landing indoors, in a studio. It is amazing what they can do.

It was put to me that one of the reasons that they could make such a production was that they could use the workforce from the Royal Lyceum theatre, which was not operating at the time because of the Covid lockdown. In that sense, it was a happy circumstance, because the people who work in set design at the Lyceum were able to continue working. However, when the Lyceum is back up and working, what happens with the next Bath Road production, “Anansi Boys”? I am sure that they have great people to do that, but I am just trying to illustrate that one of the things that we in Government need to do—and that the committee can help with, in fostering an understanding—is to get things right for the industry. We must support more productions to come here; help to provide the facilities that will enable the industry to emerge out of the market failure of the past; work with broadcasters, streaming services and other commissioners to bring more work to Scotland; and do what is needed to provide people with the skills to support production. Getting all of that right will be a virtuous circle.

Scotland has amazing scenery as a backdrop to films. However, albeit that we wish for Scotland to be represented as a backdrop in plenty of films, the even bigger prize for us, as technology develops, is the filming here of anything that is set anywhere. As a cultural offering, that is a massive prize for us.

I put down a marker on an additional point. For decades, we have exported those who are our brightest and best in the industry. That includes the talent that we all know; just think of all those Scottish performers who are now based in New York or Los Angeles—or London, for that matter. However, added to that are all the people who might not be known—directors, producers and people who work on the shop floor, so to speak—who have gone where the work has taken them. We now have the prize of a full career opportunity, for life, based in Scotland.

Sorry—I have spoken about the matter for quite a while, and I could speak longer about it. I hope that I am giving you a flavour of the fact that Screen Scotland’s work will be transformational. It is a new string to our bow when it comes to culture and the arts in Scotland, and we should grab with both hands the opportunity that it brings.

I would be happy to hear about anything that you find out through your work that suggests that we should do more or less of some things, or do them differently.

I will answer that in two ways.

First, I will comment on social enterprises and the example that you gave of urban regeneration. The programme for government commits the Scottish Government to recognising

“the importance of place in Scottish culture, and to support communities to celebrate and preserve their heritage”.

It also says:

“this year we will start work on designing a National Towns of Culture scheme, to be launched over this Parliament.”

We are thinking about that and how it can best incorporate the efforts of all kinds of organisations. It gives an opportunity to listen to advice such as that given by Mr Ruskell to ensure that the approach is as broad as the ambition might be in the cultural recovery strategy to ensure that things are joined up. I am taking that down as a mental note and action point, because it is a specific point on urban regeneration and understanding culture in the broadest of senses. It is a good example.

On the second part of the question, I refer back to the much-mentioned cultural recovery strategy that we are unable to talk about in greater detail. I think that Mr Ruskell will be keen to know how tangible the ambition of joined-up Government is to include organisations that might not, on first reading, be thought of as being cultural organisations. I do not know the answer to the question. I am keen to make it happen and for my colleagues to think about it.

No doubt, the committee will want to come back and ask whether the cultural recovery and renewal strategy is fit for purpose and whether it fulfils the ambitions that I have shared with the committee, as well as meeting your priorities as individual members and collectively as a committee. That will be a worthwhile process, when we get to the stage of the Government agreeing the strategy and seeking the views of the likes of this committee.

That is a point well made and well noted. I want to give an example of the fact that our cultural producers are not just based in our cities. I pray in aid the fact that one of the biggest movers and shakers behind season 2 of “Good Omens” is based in Skye, which is a good example of the fact that it is perfectly possible to be a talented writer or director, or possessor of many of the other skills that Jenni Minto has highlighted, and to still work in that sector while living outwith the central belt. That is one of the advantages of our being a small country.

In reflecting on the issue that you raised, another point that comes to mind is the importance of commissioning in Scotland. That is where the likes of Channel 4, which has one of its commissioning hubs in Glasgow, have great potential. That means having somebody on the ground who understands the independent sector—Channel 4 commissions others to produce content for it. Even if the commissioning hub is headquartered in Glasgow, it should know about—I know that it does—and be interested in the skills that exist throughout the country. It is important that commitments are received from—in this case—UK-based public service broadcasters, whether Channel 4, the BBC or others, to commission in Scotland, and I have impressed on their chief executives that that should happen.

Incidentally, one of my concerns, which I am sure that many members of the committee also have, is about the prospects for the future of Channel 4. Should Channel 4 be privatised in the way that is proposed and the model under which it operates be changed without any guarantees for the protection of the likes of the commissioning structure that is now based in Scotland for the first time, we have the potential to lose the gains that I have outlined. That is one of the key reasons for my hoping that the UK Government reconsiders that privatisation. It has done so previously, so I hope that it will understand that, if one wants to ensure that different parts of the UK reap the benefits of screen and television production, and one wants to level up in a variety of places, cutting our footprint in different parts of the UK will be extremely detrimental.

Absolutely. Let me start in a place that people might not have thought of. We could start in the US, but I will come back there in a moment. I have been discussing with some members of the committee the Scottish Government’s plans for an expansion of our network that includes Copenhagen and Warsaw. I will give a concrete example of why a direct presence in Copenhagen matters. You do not need to be the biggest fan of Scandi noir to understand that one of the most successful broadcasters in the world to produce content in recent years has been DR, the Danish public broadcaster.

What DR has been able to do, individually and in co-production, often with its Swedish and Norwegian neighbours, is produce content in a language that is spoken by only 5 million people. We have all been enjoying series such as “Borgen”, “The Bridge” and a variety of other series that have been massive hits. That is a classic example of why I think that, notwithstanding all the other sensible reasons for us having a presence in the Nordic and Baltic regions, we can learn from the best practice of a country that has been tremendously successful. What has it been doing that has meant that a country the same size as Scotland, with a national broadcaster, which we do not have in the same way, has been able to make commercially successful productions and export them? The number 1 place that I want to learn from is Denmark, so having a presence in Copenhagen is a very good idea.

Of course, it is much more than that. There is a Scottish Government office in Washington DC that works closely with our Scottish Development International presence in other parts of the United States. In addition, Screen Scotland regularly has a presence in the US when it deals directly with people in the film industry about the changing landscape, if we want to call it that, of screen production in Scotland. That operates on the basis that we have permanent representation and a wider network that is joined up with the Scottish Government and our agencies.

An additional thought that fits in with my portfolio relates to our diaspora, part of which includes some of the most successful people in film and television in the world. They just happen not to be based here. We know that we have great fortune that somebody such as Brian Cox, to pluck an example out of the air, can one week be making the hit series “Succession”, and the next week can be filming something in Dundee for BBC Scotland because he is personally committed to that. I want to make sure that people in our diaspora who work in the sector are fully aware of what is going on here, because a great many of them have moved semi-permanently somewhere else. That is their life choice; they have the good fortune to work in an industry that has taken them to LA or wherever it might be. They operate in a sector in which they have great influence and can help to promote what we are doing here in their own way. That is something else that is on my list.

Yes, there is the formal work and the efforts to have a greater footprint, and what they can add as part of our endeavour. It is then about using the networks of people who are part of the Scottish diaspora or affinity Scots who can also play a part.

I have just had another thought on that. In recent years, a number of people have come to Scotland to make films or television series. They are not from here, and when they have gone back to wherever it is they have come from, they have shared immense praise with their colleagues. We need to do everything that we can to capitalise on the good will that we see growing in the film and TV industry to get maximum effect in Scotland.

There are massive upsides at the moment, and I encourage the committee to develop its interests in that.

There is a conceptual point about understanding the feedback on that. I think that everybody here will appreciate that, just because a particular body is headquartered in—for the sake of argument—Edinburgh, that does not mean that all its cultural work is undertaken in Edinburgh. We have cultural organisations that set great store by the fact that they tour, but that is not borne out in the headline figures on the disbursal of funds to particular organisations. That creates the impression that all the money is centred on Edinburgh, for example, which is not the case.

I speak as somebody who lived for a great length of time in the north of Scotland and who was able to enjoy all kinds of national companies and other companies that are headquartered in Edinburgh or Glasgow performing in places such as the Universal hall in Findhorn or Elgin town hall. That underlines the point that we have to be careful in understanding where money is disbursed to.

A second point is about how we encourage organisations that are currently not funded to seek funding. That goes back to something that we discussed right at the start, so I do not want to go round the houses again on that. One thing that the committee might be able to help us with is understanding whether there is a slew of organisations across the country that wish to be funded and that are not being funded for a particular reason. If that is the case, I would like to know about it. I do not have a sense of systemic underfunding of organisations that are based outside the cities.

It is probably undeniably the case that some cultural organisations could do more work elsewhere in the country. Mr Cameron will know that funding streams have been made available and are being disbursed right now to allow performers and people in the arts scene to reach different parts of the country. I encourage anybody who is watching the meeting to do so if they want to.

Point 1 is a conceptual point—it is not the case that the money is spent only in the local authorities in whose areas the organisations are headquartered. Secondly, I am not aware that there is a whole series of organisations that are based elsewhere and are not funded or are underfunded. Thirdly, we need to ensure that we reach the whole country.