Seòmar agus comataidhean

On that, the Government has pointed to an increase in this budget, as it has done on a number of occasions. However, we know that the culture budget was cut last year, and we also know that the culture budget is 6 per cent smaller in real terms than it was in 2022-23.

We heard concerns last week about the future of organisations in the current funding crisis—you will have heard that as well. We have also heard time and again about cultural provision having to be cut back. I think that there has been a mixed response to the budget as a result of those figures. Sam Dunkley of the Musicians Union said:

“Unfortunately, I am not sure that the additional funding announced in the budget—as welcome as it is—will have the impact that we need it to have.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 11 January 2024; c 11.]

The Scottish household survey talks about a reduction in cultural participation and cultural activity. You have rightly talked about the importance of equal access to culture and of sustaining cultural provision. Again, I agree with those points. We are hearing concerns from the sector that cultural provision will not be sustained at current levels. You are talking about the importance of sustaining it at current levels, and I agree with that. The question is, will this budget sustain cultural activities and participation at current levels?

On the matter of responding to audiences, the “Ofcom Annual Report on the BBC 2022-23” found that

“Audiences from D and E socio-economic groups remain less satisfied with the BBC’s performance than those from other groups”.

Do you have any indication as to why that is the case? What is being done to address that?

I have no relevant interests to declare.

Good morning to the panel. We have heard a lot about the on-going crisis in funding and we have previously discussed the perfect storm that is affecting funding for the culture sector. We like to talk about outcomes and what Government spending achieves. The 2022 Scottish household survey showed that 74 per cent of adults attended a culture event or place of culture, which was a decrease from 81 per cent in 2019. If we exclude cinema, it was 65 per cent in 2022, which is down from 74 per cent in 2019. Access to culture opportunities has therefore declined.

The pandemic undoubtedly had an impact, and there were some light restrictions at the start of 2022. We have heard from Francesca Hegyi about reducing shows and capacity, so to what extent can we put that decline down to a depletion of cultural resource and infrastructure? Given the current levels of funding, do you expect us to go back to pre-Covid levels any time soon? Will we see that decline in cultural opportunities and reduction in activity being reversed?

Thank you for those answers. A number of you mentioned the local context and local government funding. We have talked about the national budget, and Culture Counts talked in its submission about the crisis in funding for local councils.

From the national organisations, we have heard that one of the main concerns is standstill funding and the lack of resource that is needed to meet the current challenges. Is there a danger of a double whammy, with national funding not what it should be and local council funding also being cut? That would mean that cultural provision would be affected by both national and local funding decisions.

A related question, which is not for this year’s budget, concerns the proposed visitor levy. The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill is going through Parliament; the stage 1 debate takes place next Tuesday. Are there any thoughts on that?

I appreciate that a number of you made the point that private investment will not plug the funding gap. Your organisations are accessing as much private investment as they can, and there is a lot of wishful thinking about how the gap can be plugged by alternative means, but any thoughts on the use of the visitor levy in that regard would be welcome.

You have talked about the importance of multiyear funding—you have been consistent in highlighting the need for that. The cabinet secretary’s indication of £25 million of funding for 2025-26 is significant in that regard. I appreciate that you are looking for more detail on this year, never mind next year. However, it is significant that the Government has previously said that it cannot make multiyear funding announcements but has then gone on to indicate what we can expect to see in 2025-26. We have seen a pledge to provide £100 million over the next five years. Would you agree that it is significant that the Government has said that? Should the cabinet secretary go further and, as a minimum, give an indication for 2026-27, to allow for further planning, to give the clarity that we have heard is needed and to provide an envelope for the multiyear funding that you have previously called for?

I welcome that. We need to understand more about the shortfalls that exist as regards skills and the investment that is required, so I look forward to receiving details on that.

Good morning, minister. In your opening comments, you said that the shortage of skills has become an even more important issue in the past few years. You talked about the financial situation and the need to understand the key issues that the sector faces. Investment in skills is one of those key areas.

Bryan Dickson, head of buildings conservation at the National Trust for Scotland, expressed the view that, although the review of the skills investment plan should create some positive action, there needs to be more investment in that area. He also argued that the concerns of the historic environment sector need to be more mainstreamed to ensure that there is enough support in areas such as skills training.

I will follow on from Alexander Stewart’s question. I noted that you said that the budgets for Historic Environment Scotland and for stonemasonry have increased. Do you agree with the evidence that we have received that there needs to be more investment in skills?

It is clear that we need greater investment in skills, and the evidence that we have received backs that up. I welcome the meetings that you are having with Mr Dey—that is positive. However, people in the sector and more widely are probably looking for more details, targets and specifics on how we will address the problems. I appreciate that you are saying that nothing has been agreed yet. Clearly, we have skills investment shortages in stonemasonry, but we are also short of traditional joiners, line plasterers, historic gardeners, surveyors and archaeologists. We hear that we need more investment in skills, but we also need more clarity from the Government about where we are going in relation to that. Earlier, you talked about the number of apprenticeships in stonemasonry. If we accept that there is a skills shortage, what analysis has the Government done of that shortage and what targets will it set to address it?

I welcome the fact that the ministers with responsibilities for skills and for heritage are meeting to discuss that matter, because it is clearly a big issue.

We are talking about the new strategy and a refreshed skills investment plan for the historic environment sector. Skills Development Scotland noted last week that a number of the SMART goals had not been achieved. I know that Covid was part of the reason for that. It also said that those working on the review were hoping to use goals more in line with available resources. We have talked about resources before more generally, but you have also said that, in relation to skills, there will never be enough resource. I think that you said earlier that you have got to balance a sense of ambition with pragmatism.

Those goals were not met before so, given the refreshed skills investment plan and the aim of being more pragmatic in line with resources, is this strategy more realistic and, therefore, less ambitious than the previous strategy and plan?