Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I will use the Gillies report as a starter. As we have all said at various points today, the report was about the lack of leadership and the leadership culture in the past, but we are back at this point again.

To use Mr Hamill’s example of going to commercial lenders to try to regenerate various parts of the campus and to get equipment for some of the departments, it is normal for a university to try to do something like that. On the whole, though, commercial bankers tend to want to see a strategy and a leadership group that will be there in the long term. However, you might not be there in the next 12 to 18 months.

Given what you are looking at now, is this not a crisis of some priority? From what I can make out—and please correct me if I am wrong—at least four senior posts are still held as interim positions. Would it not be a priority to get to the stage where we can look at people who will be doing that work in the long term? A commercial banker would look at it and say, “Yes, Professor Seaton. That’s all well and good. It’s a great plan, but you’re not going to be here in 18 months.”

Appointing a chair is your number 1 priority. You have to get that and then work your way down the list of the various processes from there. The point is that it is holding back the idea of the university moving forward. I know that the university is at a crisis point at the moment, but we need to get it into a better place.

Good morning. The definitions are one of the things that I am trying to get my head around. As you have quite rightly said, the teaching trade unions have issues, to put it mildly, with the definition. They will have to deal with it day in and day out, so it will be very difficult for them. There are legal concerns, as well as concerns about what the definition is.

My concern is around what would happen if a teacher was trying to stop a child from doing something that they should not be doing. The definition is so tight that if a teacher grabbed a child who was going to jump in front of a car, that could be construed as restraining a child. I know that that is an extreme example, but it could be seen as some form of restraint. Where do we draw the line? I have some concerns that the definition seems pretty vague and it could be opened up to all kinds of interpretation. The key worry is about where it could end up.

I have taken on board from some the evidence that teachers in the classroom might be second-guessing what they are going to do and how they are going to deal with certain situations, which I am concerned about. I do not like the idea of teachers not knowing how to proceed with something because the definitions in the bill are so vague. It is a challenging enough environment for teachers as it is. Will the bill not cause more problems, or am I my being overly dramatic?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I would like to follow on from what Jamie Halcro Johnston was saying about cultural regeneration as a tool to regenerate our town centres, villages and other areas across Scotland.

As you will be aware, I have already gone on at length about the fact that Renfrewshire Council has invested in Paisley, in particular in the town hall, the library and the museum, all of which are on the High Street, in order to try to create footfall in that area. There is also another issue, which is the fact that we have smaller venues—people looking to perform in a major venue will not go to Paisley town hall—and I note that, in your discussion with Jamie Halcro Johnston, you mentioned funding for smaller venues.

The Bungalow music venue, which was previously the Bungalow bar, has an interesting history. In the 1970s, it had all the major punk bands, because Glasgow City Council banned punk. For once, Renfrewshire Council thought that it was a good idea to make some money and encourage people to come to the town centre. How would venues such as that, which are smaller and of significance to the local area, go about engaging with Government in relation to funding? To be fair to the Government, it backed such venues during the Covid period, but they are struggling. They are doing well to get by, but there are still issues that mean that it is a bit of a struggle at times.

The Bungalow is quite interesting as it is a community investment company, not a for-profit organisation, so it ticks all the boxes with regard to the Government’s idea of investing in the future of culture.

I will move on to a different issue. One idea, which just about everyone who gave us evidence brought up, is for the Government to create a cross-portfolio fund, which would encourage organisations to look at things in a cross-portfolio way, too. The Scottish Library and Information Council gave a name to it: a culture and wellbeing fund. However, it could be broader than that. What are your thoughts on creating something along those lines?

It is all culture.

I have two questions, which I will ask very quickly.

Okay, then. I will skip my question about the visitor levy.

Screen Scotland, which is part of Creative Scotland, is a shining beacon of what a successful organisation looks like. The fact that it is being allocated an extra £2 million points to its success.

Earlier, I asked Iain Munro about the organisation and he spoke about how important it is as part of the work that Creative Scotland is doing. It showcases Scottish talent and ability, and there is also the sheer involvement element, which is important for tourism. I have already used the example of walking down the Royal Mile and seeing Americans looking for “Outlander” locations. There is growth in that for us. How do you see us moving forward in that regard? Obviously, we are investing in that, but we can generate some income from it, too.

Alastair, you have just hit on my next question. Screen Scotland, which is one of your major successes, has created that sort of footfall; you only need walk up the Royal Mile to see American tourists wandering about various places shown in scenes from “Outlander”. Indeed, we members see them when we go back to our digs at night.

You have received an extra £2 million on top of your £2.5 million base budget for that, but I note, too, a 110 per cent increase in inward investment in film in Scotland. That seems quite incredible. I know that there is “Outlander”, and there are other examples such as “Batgirl”—Warner Brothers did decide to scrap it but, hey, Glasgow still got some success from the film actually being made there—and “The Rig”.

I am quite interested in the fact that every £1 invested in film effectively creates £12-worth of economic activity. Surely that is a perfect example of what we are talking about. Do we not need to support such activity and ensure that we create and develop that kind of screen tourism? After all, we seem to be punching well above our weight here in Scotland in that respect.