Seòmar agus comataidhean

My final question is on the arguments that we have had on the transition to net zero and the challenges in the sector. I do not want to ask you a very general question, because we have had lots of useful input from witnesses on the issue. I want to be quite specific. One of the figures that stood out for me very clearly was that three quarters of the emissions that arise from the culture sector come from audience travel. Even if we make substantial progress on reducing emissions from all the operational elements, that will result in a very small cut in emissions overall. Is the Government willing to bring a new approach to bear in relation to culture, tourism and the economy in order to refocus on building audiences from domestic travel so that we are less reliant on the most high-carbon travel on the planet?

Good morning. You will have heard some of the discussions that we have had with witnesses about the balance between the uplift in culture spending benefiting more organisations or benefiting organisations to a higher level. Should we fund more organisations, or should we provide more funding at a higher level? Obviously, it would be nice to do both, and either approach would have benefits, but you will have heard the concerns about there being unintended negative consequences if there is too rigid a focus on spreading the benefit to more organisations.

Instead of having a discussion about the relative benefits, I will ask a factual question. A written submission from one of our witnesses states:

“The budget increases are welcome but their impact is reduced by ... The Minister’s indication that the increased budget for Multi-Year Funding ... could/should fund more organisations rather than funding fewer to a higher level.”

As a matter of fact, have you given an indication or a directive of any kind about the relative balance that should be struck between funding more organisations and providing higher levels of funding?

The comment that I quoted is from the Culture for Climate Scotland written submission, which the committee has already published. It sounds as though your answer is that there is a much more flexible approach than our witnesses were under the impression there is to finding a balance between funding more organisations and providing a higher level of funding. That is a helpful steer.

You spoke about cross-portfolio approaches. A number of witnesses talked about the difficulties and barriers that they face in making the argument that a piece of work is more than just a culture project. Is it a climate project? Is it a health project? Is it an education project? Is it a communities project? It might be all of those things, but there are significant barriers to taking a holistic approach to funding.

I will give the specific example of the National Galleries Scotland art works project at Granton, which you will be well aware of. We were told that the project will meet many different public policy objectives that the Government supports. Anne Lyden told us:

“I have no doubt that the cabinet secretary has supported this project and would like to see it happen.”

I hope that that is true, and I would like to see it happen as well. She added that

“there is a question around whether the rest of the Cabinet and Government can see how it will perform in those areas”—

that is, beyond the culture portfolio—

“and agree that, because it will deliver those cross-portfolio benefits, it requires investment from those portfolios.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 11 September 2025; c 24.]

You have talked about the need to do cross-portfolio work better. What specifically will change? What will be different about the way that such decisions are made between portfolios in the future in order to make it less of a problem than it clearly has been in the past?

Forgive me, but can I steer you a little closer to the question? I get why all of that is important, but what will be different about how the Government achieves that cross-portfolio approach to making funding decisions, whether on capital or on revenue, to ensure that, when a project is meeting the other objectives beyond culture, those other portfolios are able to make a contribution?

Are you saying that our witnesses last week were not correct in their assumption, or in the impression that they have taken, that there is a deliberate policy choice to fund more organisations rather than funding them to a higher level? Are they mistaken?

So, from your point of view, such an organisation, which must work across the sector, should have nothing to fear from the growth of the number of organisations that need its services, because Creative Scotland will support that growth in what it needs to do.

My final question is not so much on the funding and delivery of that type of work but on the issues that CCS deals with. If it is done right by any culture organisation, particularly those that perhaps use older buildings, the transition to net zero could be hugely beneficial, with regard to organisations reducing their costs in the long run, such as by generating their own energy, having lower running costs for their buildings and reducing transport costs. However, if it is done wrong, it could build up to huge problems. If an organisation makes the wrong choices about those changes, it could massively increase its costs.

Are you confident that, whether through CCS or the advice that you provide directly, the culture sector has the advice that it needs to make those choices sensibly and in a way that is effective for its balance sheet and for the carbon impact?

I am not asking for your thoughts on those people; I am asking for a recognition that we need to fly less.

Thank you, convener—I apologise for coming in just a few seconds late at the start of the meeting.

Good morning to our witnesses. I will start with the question that the convener started with, and which Mr Kerr touched on, about the tension between more organisations and higher levels of funding. You have given a lot of useful information on that, but I am struggling to get a real sense of clarity about whether a definitive approach is being deliberately taken in that respect. Last week, the committee heard from witnesses who were clearly under the impression that a clear, established policy approach is being taken, which is that more organisations will be funded, rather than organisations being funded to a higher level. You talked about the proportion of an ask that is met, but people are going to make their bids based on what they think that they are going to get.

Are organisations being supported, for example, to cover the additional costs for meeting fair work principles or higher energy costs? Are they being supported to bid for their increased costs, or is there a definitive policy position—our witnesses last week were clearly under the impression that there is—that the funding will go to more organisations, rather than reaching a higher level?

What about the kinds of organisations whose job is not directly to deliver cultural goods or cultural activity but to work with other cultural organisations? For example, Culture for Climate Scotland must support a wide range of other organisations to address climate issues through either their facilities, their operations or their cultural content. If there is a significant growth in the number of organisations being funded and, therefore, in the number that want to access its services, will the funding landscape work for an organisation such as that, which is sector wide, rather than working only for organisations that are funded to deliver their own programmes?