Official Report 648KB pdf
Agenda item 5 is an evidence-taking session on the challenges of artists’ mobility between Scotland and the EU, with a focus on the music industry. The evidence will inform our inquiry on the review of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, as well as our on-going input into the UK-EU parliamentary partnership assembly in advance of its next meeting on 4 to 5 December.
We are joined this morning by Sam Dunkley, acting regional organiser of the Musicians Union; Alice Black, Scottish live events branch, Bectu, who is joining us online this morning; Alistair Mackie, chief executive of the Royal Scottish National Orchestra; Ewan Robertson, board member of Traditional Arts and Culture Scotland; and Lisa Whytock, director of Active Events, who is also joining us online.
I invite each of our witnesses to give a short overview of the challenges experienced by touring artists post-EU exit from their own organisation’s perspectives. I will begin with Ms Whytock.
Thanks very much for this opportunity. I would like to just add that, in addition to being the director of Active Events, I also run Showcase Scotland Expo, which is the export office for folk and roots music, and that I will be giving evidence in both capacities.
It will come as no surprise to the committee that the challenges since Brexit have increased. It is important to say something else that will also come as no surprise, either: for there to be professional musicians in Scotland, it is imperative that they earn an income outwith the borders of our country. Our nation is simply too small for them to sustain an income.
Some of the main challenges lie with administration. The carnet situation is an issue for artists, both financially and administratively. The associated costs vary widely, depending on the instruments and equipment that need to be listed on the document. There is also a challenge with border controls for carnets. Officials have a varying understanding of the situation; it is random and just depends on which airport you go through. It can often cause delays and alarm for musicians operating under a carnet system.
There is an issue with customs, too, and it has contributed to a massive drop in artists’ earnings from merchandising. It is much more expensive to bring merchandise into the EU and, therefore, to earn from it. All of that is, of course, hitting artists during the perfect storm of increased costs and the challenges of the current economy in which we are living.
Within the Celtic and folk world specifically, there is also a challenge with booking artists. For example, if an arts festival in Denmark or France wants to book a Celtic artist, it is very easy to bypass Scotland and just programme one directly from Ireland. It is a challenge that we have been working hard to try to combat.
It is also much harder for new artists to break into Europe. I think that it is slightly easier for the more established artists, but for newer ones, it is much harder, partly because the promoters in Europe have less confidence that younger artists will understand the complexities associated with Brexit, and partly because, quite frankly, they do not have the financial backing to be able to undertake journeys into Europe for the first time.
There are also challenges with vehicle movement, which I am hoping that my colleague Alice Black will expand on. I am not going to talk about cabotage, which has been widely discussed. Instead, I want to talk about the issues with insurance, which is not even a Government-implemented problem—or whatever the language is. Essentially, if an artist wants to hire a vehicle to go from the UK to mainland Europe, the insurance that imposed by the hire companies is so high that they cannot do it. The private insurance charges are preclusive, which has implications for green touring. The issue needs to be looked at desperately.
I noticed in the papers an outline of the support that currently exists for artists, and I felt that I needed to dispel some myths about that. The music export growth scheme—MEGS—that is mentioned is not a suitable fund for many artists. Under the scheme, you are given money, but you do not receive it until you have spent it and have shown your receipts. It forces artists into debt and is suitable only for musicians who are supported by London-based record labels; it is certainly not suitable for the way in which Scotland’s infrastructure is set up.
The open fund is managed by Creative Scotland, which, as everyone knows, is under increasing pressure. It is by no means assured that artists will be supported to tour through that fund; in fact, many of the challenges with it are so great that I think it unlikely that many will be supported by it at all. The PRS Foundation’s fund that has been mentioned is only for showcasing, not for touring, while the made in Scotland onward international touring fund is applicable only to artists who have performed at any of the Edinburgh festivals. There is a national performing arts companies touring fund, which, of course, is not applicable to any musicians. Although there are resources that can potentially help musicians, none of them is suitable for independent musicians, and that is a worry. I think that certain things can be done in that respect.
I will invite you to ask questions after this, because I am trying to run through things as quickly as possible. Quite honestly, I could be talking here for at least an hour.
10:15There are a number of things that can be done that are within the Scottish Government’s ask. The first is to continue the discussions and dialogue on developing a music export office, as that would alleviate many challenges, certainly for emerging artists. A promoter in Denmark might be concerned about booking an emerging or new artist for the first time, so if they have the confidence that a music export office is there to provide the resources and knowledge for those artists, it will go a long way towards helping the situation. I should also point out that, when I say that I run the export office for Scottish folk music, it is very a part-time role, and that, when I refer to a music export office, I mean a fully functioning and properly funded export office.
I also think that something that could be done quite quickly in the shorter term is to set up a touring fund, similar to either made in Scotland or the national companies international touring fund, that will be available to help artists through these times.
I could say a lot more. I am lobbying for a cultural touring agreement within the EU, but I do understand that that is not within the gift of the Scottish Government and is a UK-wide ask. That said, a cultural exchange or touring agreement between the EU and the UK would certainly go a long way towards helping that situation.
I will stop at that. There was quite a lot in there, but I invite the committee to ask questions and I am happy to add any more comments.
We will take opening statements from all the witnesses first of all and then move to questions. I will bring in Alice Black who is also joining us online.
Much of the media attention around EU touring focuses on artists, but for every musician on a tour, there are several technicians, crew, producers, tour and production managers and drivers, without whom there would be no shows. As our members support the artistic vision and make it something that can be seen and heard, we have to talk about the two things in the same breath—one cannot exist without the other.
Scottish and UK technical staff are renowned as some of the most skilled crew in the world. Many international artists used to begin their tours in the United Kingdom, working with crews in Scotland, and hired equipment and transport from the UK to take into the EU. That has become too complex and, because of the 90-day rule for travel and the additional paperwork and expense required for the movement of goods, a large number of artists and touring companies are just not travelling to the UK and are not hiring our crew or our equipment to take it abroad. That has had a knock-on impact on venues and promoters, equipment hire companies, trucking companies and transport providers. We were at the centre of the live events industry, but I feel like that that has changed and we are now falling behind.
The 90-days-out-of-180 travel rule is having a real impact on our members. We have heard personal stories of people being unable to holiday with their family, because they are concerned about using up some of their 90 days and not having enough time to take a tour if they are offered it. The rule therefore has an impact on our members and their families, and that impact is wider than just financial.
We would like to see much of what Lisa Whytock talked about, such as a specific mention in the trade and co-operation agreement for cultural workers and a waiver for visas and travel. I know that we have a lot of bilateral agreements with specific countries in the EU, but the situation is complex, because different rules apply in different countries. Individuals and sole traders who are trying to navigate that have to spend a lot of additional time working it all out.
There are also exemptions for carnets for musical instruments, but if our technicians travel with a lighting desk, for example, there is no exemption for that. Again, it means that people are faced with additional costs and paperwork and having to take additional time that they did not have to previously, just to take the tools that they need to do their job into the EU.
I will leave it there for now and take questions later. To summarise, though, I would say that much of the impact is the same for our members in more technical roles as it is for artists.
As well as being a new board member for Traditional Arts and Culture Scotland, I am a touring musician with a folk group and have direct experience of pre-Brexit and post-Brexit touring. I will give you a snapshot of our experience and some of the challenges.
The main challenge is loss of bookings. In 2018, we had 37 shows in the EU, and in 2019, we played 61. In 2022, however, we played four shows in the EU and, in 2023, we have managed to play 12. Obviously, there are other issues surrounding Covid, but we are back to similar levels of concerts in the UK and have seen a slight increase in other territories, such as North America.
I have spoken to different EU agents with whom we work, and they have reported administrative problems. They have found that bands simply do not want to come and tour. I know that that sounds a bit vague, but the fact is that those agents are certainly reluctant to engage with Scottish artists.
It is becoming increasingly hard to make a profit, due to rising costs. I have spoken with another group, Skerryvore, who are a flagship Scottish band; they have just completed a European tour, but they did not break even on it. One of the main issues with rising costs was the amount of money that they were spending on their carnet.
There are also a lot of challenges with merchandising. We have had reports of bands losing up to 72 per cent of online sales to the EU. There are also travel challenges with missing flight connections and the other implications of being held up at customs.
Alice Black referred to the problems that the rules cause for work and time with our families. In the band that I play with, three of us have young families. If we have to explore other territories to work in, it means more travel, more time away from home and more costs. It certainly make things difficult.
I have probably talked about a lot of what will be covered and am repeating what has already been said, but it is important to say that there is a fabulous network of venues and promoters, as well as a huge passion and demand for Scottish music and culture. It is just becoming increasingly difficult to access, with the increased workload and expenditure. Moving forward, we will have to look to other territories, and that is a great shame.
I will try not to repeat what has been said, but the RSNO will do 13 performances in Europe this year. I will describe some of the challenges that existed before Brexit for touring an orchestra from Scotland.
Three weeks ago, we went to Salzburg with 110 musicians. There are far fewer flights out of Scotland than there are from London, for example, so we have to put our musicians on multiple flights. We suffer from dynamic pricing models. At the cheap end, we might get a return flight to Salzburg for £300. For the last 10 or 20 musicians, we are up to about £1,000. That is just a geographical point, but it is background to how much more expensive it is for us.
Because we almost always take two flights to our first touring venue, we always have to travel a day before our first concert, unlike a London orchestra, which will travel on the day of its first concert 95 per cent of the time. We cannot trust flight connections or risk passport delays, as has been mentioned. Passport delays are a huge factor now. Getting 100 people through passport control takes a lot of time.
Even before Brexit, there were additional expenses with touring a Scottish orchestra as opposed to a London orchestra. On top of that are the issues with carnets and cabotage, which have been mentioned. I will give you some detail on that. Cabotage costs us about an extra £15,000—that involves bringing a lorry from Europe to Glasgow, which goes to Europe, comes back to Glasgow and then goes back to Europe, rather than taking our own lorry. Additional carnet costs are about £10,000 for each visit that we make to Europe.
Touring is crucially important for the national orchestra. It offers real reputational gain for the orchestra and for Scotland as a whole. Most major cities and most countries have orchestras that are flagship cultural institutions, and touring them is a crucial part of articulating what is happening back in the home country.
One other piece of background is that I spent 23 years in a London orchestra—the Philharmonia. A London orchestra gets about 20 per cent of its turnover in public subsidy, independent of tax credits. In Scotland, we get nearly 40 per cent. That is much less than it used to be. However, London orchestras are able to build a business model whereby touring is an absolutely crucial income generator. I would like to think that the RSNO can be in Europe enough to build a similar model because, if we are not, we will not build the reputation that we need to have to get into the large halls for the higher fees.
The fees for our tour in January 2024 are 14 per cent higher than those for our tour in April 2022. That is because we are committed to going to Europe. We are building our reputation and our fees. We are going to bigger halls. I want that trajectory to continue. Eventually, touring could be a key part of our turnover. However, we will not get there unless we are in Europe often enough, and we cannot do that and break even at the moment.
The international touring fund has been mentioned. I will say something about that on behalf of the national companies. We could not tour without that fund. It is absolutely crucial. However, we have to tie down touring dates about two years out. For example, we will get some support for Salzburg in October, and some support in January. That support was confirmed with us two weeks ago, after we had been to Salzburg and after all our concerts in January had been contracted. That funding is invaluable—it allows us to tour, but it is so uncertain at the moment that I am finding it difficult to commit to future European tours without some certainty that we will have that funding. All our finances are so tight, as you know. Adding in a potential significant loss on touring is hard to justify.
I will also say a bit about inward movement. We have always depended to some extent on European musicians coming to Scotland. That allows us to present an international season and to maintain a world-class orchestra. However, I checked our numbers this morning. The RSNO has 108 British members, but it now has only eight European members and one non-European member. That is dramatically different from a London orchestra. That is partly down to the complexities of Brexit—the visas, the costs of visas, national health service surcharges and all the other additional things—but it is also a funding issue, in that we now pay so much less than other UK orchestras, and less than European orchestras.
You can compare the situation to that of a top football team. We need to access the European labour market to get the very best musicians and keep the national orchestra at an international level, but the combination of low salaries, increased complexity and visa costs is making it extremely difficult to recruit from outside the UK. Although I do not believe that that has had an impact on the level of the orchestra at the moment, it is inevitable that, through time, it will.
Maybe I can say something on a more positive, anecdotal note. After Brexit, there is a lot of negative feeling towards the UK and towards UK culture and orchestras. However, everywhere we have been as a Scottish orchestra, we have been warmly welcomed. That is an important statement for Scotland to make, and I wanted to report that back.
We would like to be in Europe more. Almost everywhere we have been, we have been reinvited. However, I hear, “We were surprised how good you were.” I do not want anyone to be surprised by the level of culture in Scotland. The reason for the surprise is that we are just not there enough, and we are just not there enough because of the financial challenges of being there, which have increased after Brexit. They were already challenging before.
I appreciate the chance to tell the committee my woes and to say how crucial it is that Scottish cultural institutions—bands, orchestras, theatres and opera houses—are in Europe. We are letting people know how good what is going on here is.
10:30
Good morning, and thank you for inviting me today. The experience of the Musicians Union is similar to that that you have heard already, so I will try not to repeat too much.
To give you some context, before Brexit, the inquiries that we got from member musicians about working in Europe were similar to the inquiries that we still get about working in the UK—they were about contracts, fees, insurance and transport. The inquiries that we get now are about visas and work permits; often, they are about carnets. That is because the majority of our members are individual musicians who have been asked to navigate incredibly complex systems that, almost by default, are not user friendly and are not designed to be user friendly.
There are added costs for our members with carnets and visas. There is added complexity in simply being able to go to work and make a living. For a lot of musicians, that combination means that touring is Europe is no longer a financially viable option.
“This is Music 2023”, a report from earlier this year, said that 82 per cent of those who responded to the survey said that their European earnings had decreased, 65 per cent were receiving fewer invitations to perform in the EU, and 57 per cent said that it was not possible to take up invitations because of increased costs. Last month, a member got in touch to ask whether the fee that they had been offered for a gig in Europe was reasonable, and by the time we had talked it through, we worked out they would end up with about £50, and they would be there for three or four days. That is just not viable.
Before Brexit, a lot of independent musicians were learning their trade and adding to the richness of their practice by performing in Europe, by being able to go and perform with musicians who were not from the same nation as them, and by being able to experience different cultures, audiences and a different way of performing. That option is not now open to too many musicians.
As a union, to support our members, we have created a new post, which came into effect just after Brexit. We now have a head of international who leads on such issues and works with the International Federation of Musicians, which is, in effect, a union of musicians unions from around the world, and which can lobby Governments in Europe as well as us lobbying the UK Government and Governments in the nations within the UK. That has got us somewhere, but there is still a lot of inconsistency between the different nations, and that presents our members with challenges.
We were really pleased to see the paragraph in the UK-EU domestic advisory group’s report of 6 November, which states a commitment, or an understanding, that a cultural visa waiver should be created for creative workers. We have been lobbying for that since Brexit, and we have said—as Alice Black mentioned—that it should include musicians and music workers, because without the technicians and others in supporting roles, it is difficult for musicians to do their work.
We support UK Music’s “Manifesto for Music”, which calls for a cultural touring agreement and for a music export office, which Lisa Whytock mentioned previously.
I do not want to take up time repeating things that have been said. I echo everything that has been said so far, and I am happy to talk further if members have questions.
I have a question before we move to questions from committee members. I and my deputy convener sit as observers on the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, and this will be discussed at the PPA in December. I was also allowed to take part in a breakout session on touring artists the last time we were in London. My impression—rightly or wrongly—is that there has been a focus on emerging artists and an assumption that lots of them will be young people.
Given the demographics of the areas that you work in, is having such a focus the right priority? Will it make any difference to the larger sectors that you all work in? I will go in reverse order this time.
Musicians emerge at different ages and different stages of life, because we all have different pressures and different priorities. We have members who are still in study and we have members who are past retirement age, and they all face the same barriers. The difference is not necessarily about age; it is about the scale of support and infrastructure around a musician. If you tour arenas and have production companies and record labels behind you, you will be better able to deal with those barriers than individual artists will be. The focus should be on scale rather than career stage or age.
I was a trumpet player, and when I left university there was not a job for a trumpet player in a UK orchestra for 18 months, so I had no auditions to do. I had no opportunities to get a foot in the door, so I took the chance to go and work in Paris. It was very straightforward. When I came back to the UK, I got married. I came back as a freelance musician, and I made a huge amount of my income by dotting over to Europe and playing for small ensembles, but I was not an international artist; I was an orchestral player.
The choices that I made as a young trumpet player are much more difficult now. Apart from anything else, I do not think that an orchestra in Paris would advertise for a musician in the UK now. It takes a long while. It took me until I was 28 to get my first position in a UK orchestra. I left university at 21, so I had seven years of trying to build my skills to a point where I could win a position in an orchestra. European income and European travel were a huge part of staying afloat until I had the security of a position in an orchestra.
Young people need to be fleet of foot and take every opportunity that comes, but the opportunities for young orchestral players have diminished post-Brexit.
There is an expectation that more established bands are perhaps in a stronger position to tour in the UK but, in my personal experience, that is not the case—it is actually even more difficult. We have taken steps backwards rather than forwards of late. To give you an example, we had to cut costs on our last tour, which was a 10-date tour in Germany, to make sure that the tour was profitable. We were not able to take a sound engineer with us. The fact that we were not able to employ a music worker impacts them, but it also means that you are not giving the best portrayal of yourself on an international stage, because you are taking a chance. It is a difficult situation.
I agree with what has been said. The issue affects members of all ages and at all stages in their careers. It is a particular challenge for younger workers who can no longer enjoy, and gain experience from, touring the EU in the way that I did when I started out in my career. It is a real benefit for people to be able to go and experience that and to bring back knowledge and skills to the industry in Scotland. The lack of such opportunities is putting people off joining the industry, to be honest.
We have severe skills shortages in many technical roles at the moment. We need to try and encourage people to join the industry, but part of that is the experience that you get from touring the EU, which is no longer as easy as it used to be.
As we learned during the pandemic, a lot of our workers have transferable skills, and they were able to move into other areas of the industry. A lot of people come into the industry—for example, someone who had been an electrician might decide that they want to become a lighting technician. That can happen at any stage in a person’s career or their life. There are particular challenges for younger people, but it impacts on everyone in the industry.
I agree with what everyone has said. It is often dangerous to say that we will provide a solution by providing funding for young people. I see that a lot, but it is not strategic and it does not deal with the crux of the issue, which is that, if a band that might sell 1,500 tickets in Scotland has never played in France, it needs to be able to access that market and build an audience there to have a sustainable career.
There is rightly a lot of investment in youth music initiatives, particularly in Scotland. That is great but, if those young artists do not have peers and see no pathway to a successful international career, they will not be inspired to take up careers as professional musicians. A strategic approach is needed. You need to look at the solutions for each artist at each stage of their career and not assume that, because a band has significant success in Scotland, its members are safe as professional musicians. I suggest that a more rounded approach needs to be taken, which involves looking at the challenges overall.
Thank you all for coming. I agree with Alistair Mackie that it is critical that Scottish music is in Europe. We are all proud of Scotland’s musical culture and heritage—it is key for everything else associated with the country’s reputation. Success in Europe has an economic, social and demographic impact. Mr Robertson’s comment about Skerryvore not breaking even illustrates how critical the situation is, and we are only a couple of years post Brexit.
I will focus on what the committee can call for or do to try to relieve some of the pressures that touring musicians are dealing with—apart from the obvious, which is reversing Brexit, which the committee cannot do single-handedly. There has been talk about funding and technical changes to the rules for transporting equipment, merchandise and artists into and around the EU, but where can we make the biggest and most impactful change to try to resolve the issue? Right now, the situation does not sound sustainable and, if the stakes are so high for ensuring that musicians can tour, what could we, in our devolved capacity, do that would make the biggest difference?
Ewan, do you want to go first, as you mentioned Skerryvore?
Some kind of waiver on the carnet would make a difference, because that cost has come directly from Brexit. We did not have to consider it before, and it is a significant cost. All other costs are rising anyway but, if there was some kind of waiver system that could prevent us from having to go through that process, which takes time, causes confusion and costs money, that would be fantastic.
I remember a trip back from Japan when someone put a hanky in their violin case and the whole lorry was emptied because a hanky—a silk hanky, right enough—was not on the carnet. Perhaps there could be a value below which a carnet is not required—it could be anything beneath £500, for instance. I do not know whether that is possible. The complexity of the carnet takes up so much time and money.
I understand that the cabotage exemption was not refused; it was just not pressed for. I do not understand the politics of the matter and why we cannot retrospectively push to have a cultural exemption in the cabotage rules. We invested in a lorry with a modern engine that has a low-carbon footprint, but we have to hire a haulier from Europe. We have no idea what that carbon footprint and additional expense is. It is a nightmare.
I wish that I could give you a compelling thing for the committee to do. I fear that the biggest problem for touring is the perception of complexity that European promoters have and a general negativity towards the UK post-Brexit. However, that makes it even more compelling that we should be in Europe to fight that and fight for Scotland’s reputation and place. Culture has a leading role to play.
Brexit was such a huge hit to the music industry, especially to touring. I can suggest no mitigation, although some things would help to make the situation easier and decrease costs and complexity; however, that is an even more compelling reason to fight through.
10:45
A lot of the costs come from the administrative burdens and the fees that are charged for carnets and all the rest of it. The aspiration is to have a UK-wide music export office, but I wonder whether, in the short term, there is potential to create one that serves musicians in Scotland. That would support musicians, at whatever stage of their career, to deal with the bureaucracy that they come up against and to ensure that they have access to experts and, potentially, funding to offset costs that fall on them that are not necessarily of their making and that were not there before Brexit. Is there capacity to create a fund that can pay for some of those costs for artists who tour to Europe?
In the long term, we as a union will continue lobbying for a cultural work visa. Anything that the committee can do to lobby for that would be massively appreciated. Again, I am not sure that there are quick-fix solutions, but we would be all for something in Scotland to support Scottish musicians.
I echo what Sam Dunkley has said. Obviously, the committee can lobby for waivers et cetera, but the question was about what the Scottish Government can do now. In the longer term, the ultimate aim is a Scottish music export office that focuses on the specific needs of Scottish artists. I, for one, would prefer to see that, as opposed to Scotland’s being subsumed into a UK music export office, because that worries me. I would much prefer us to lobby for a Scottish music export office.
In the short term—I mean now—an international touring fund needs to be set up to help artists to access new territories. Ewan Robertson was right that, due to the complexities and difficulties in Europe, artists now look to North America. North America is massively expensive to tour, but also very rewarding. It has always been massively expensive to tour North America, so that is not new. The complexities in Europe are new. I worry that, without intervention now, a lot more artists will leave the industry.
Colleagues in the more indie and pop world have told me that many artists have just chosen to stop touring altogether. They still record and release albums but they no longer tour, because that is just not financially practicable.
Scotland has a rich cultural heritage. We are seen as massively punching above our weight when it comes to the talent in the country. However, without intervention to sustain those professional musicians now, I worry about the future, and I think that there will be an increasing decline over the next two years. I therefore urge the committee to take action now to reverse that. That does not need to involve a huge amount of money. I welcomed the First Minister’s announcement about increased funding for culture and arts, and I urge that at least some of that be released now, to deal with the pressing problems that artists currently face.
I echo much of what has been said. I agree with campaigning for changes to the EU trade and co-operation agreement to include a free cultural worker permit or exemption and a carnet waiver and exemption. I also agree about funding to support workers and organisations with the additional costs and admin, because that is one of the main barriers that the Scottish Government could help with, through continuation of the international touring fund for national performing companies and support for the festivals expo fund. I know that, through its open funds, Creative Scotland supports organisations and individuals to tour internationally. An increased level of funding to support the kind of international work that those funds help to provide for would be great.
A member recently had a five-week tour cancelled because the international artist got too nervous about issues with visas and carnets and decided to go with a German supplier instead. It would be a great help to have a campaign about the impact of those issues.
I am interested in your campaign for a cultural touring agreement. Alice Black just spoke about the TCA review in 2026 and what discussions there can be ahead of that. Are there other sectors that link in with touring companies and musicians and that are facing similar issues, so that there is potential for you to work together? I am thinking about the screen industry as part of the cultural ecology. Are workers in the screen and other cultural sectors coming up against similar problems? How might you build a case from there?
We have members who work across screen and theatre, and this situation has an impact on them all; it is not restricted to music. My day job is partly in the National Theatre of Scotland and I also freelance in the music industry. I was having a conversation with colleagues at the National Theatre of Great Britain, who said that “War Horse”, which was one of its huge international touring productions, just would not be possible now because of the additional costs and the restrictions on the amount of time that it can spend in the EU. If big operators with the levels of resource, capacity and staffing of the National Theatre cannot manage that, how are smaller companies and arts organisation supposed to do it? That is definitely felt across the sector. Bectu covers all those areas, and a lot of working together and discussion is happening to press for changes. A cultural visa waiver would be great.
Our head of international, Dave Webster, sits on the advisory board of the Independent Commission on UK-EU Relations, which is an organisation that has released reports on many sectors of UK life. Its most recent report was on manufacturing, so it is not only the music industry that is suffering. We are seeking commonalities by working with cross-industry organisations from outside the creative sector because, as you say, it is not only musicians and those in supporting roles in the music industry who are facing these barriers—they affect professionals working across the economy.
Our focus is on lobbying for a cultural exemption, because that will be of most benefit to our members. We hope that it can be done either as part of the TCA review or as an independent side agreement. We are also working with other sectors to ensure that the voice of music is heard so that we are not missed out when any larger moves are going on.
There are some common issues across the sector, but the music industry is unique. I welcome the investment in Scottish Screen and the film industry in general, but that is not matched for the music sector. We must ensure that the particular challenges that the music industry faces are recognised, because it is a different industry. I would like that to be noted.
Okay—it is noted.
I have a final question. The committee recently went to Ireland, where we heard about a lot of the cultural work that the Irish state does to connect with its diaspora. Are artists and workers who have a family connection to Ireland applying for Irish passports? Is that a workaround to enable greater access to Europe?
Yes, of course—a lot of musicians are trying to find a grandfather somewhere in Ireland. Apart from anything, an Irish passport gets people through airports an hour quicker. A lot of individual musicians are looking to see whether they can get dual nationality.
That is interesting. Does anyone have any other thoughts on that?
Musicians have contacted us to support them in that process.
It is worth mentioning that, any time that we look at what is happening in the Republic of Ireland, we find that the level of public funding for the arts is substantially higher than it is anywhere in the UK. That makes a massive difference, because it means that the sector can be better funded—for example, musicians in employed roles can be better paid. We sit round the table and have friendly discussions about what the pay should be for musicians, but we all know that there are challenges because of the level of public funding that organisations get. The level of public funding in Ireland—the last time that I looked, it was about £20 per head—makes a difference to how musicians can tour, either with organisations or as individuals and is, as I said, vastly higher than it is in the UK.
I will echo that. Currently, numerous artists are applying for Irish passports, just to make things easier for touring in Europe.
Culture Ireland’s level of investment is absolutely phenomenal. For example, there are loads of German-Irish touring circuits, and they are funded. A lot of the artists’ travel costs are funded for them to participate in those tours, which are very successful and brilliant at introducing new artists to new audiences. Ironically, some of the artists who perform on those tours are Scottish, but they are marketed as Irish artists. It is the same in the US. There is a massive number of Irish festivals, which are all supported by Culture Ireland, and they also present Scottish artists, but the general public think that they are Irish.
I do not think for one minute that the committee will suggest that the Scottish Government should do the same, although I wish that you would. I do not think that the level of support that Culture Ireland gets directly from the Irish Government will be replicated by the Scottish Government, but it is a good model and a good way of looking at it.
Culture Ireland has responsibility not just for music but for all the arts, so it can take a strategic view as to what each arts sector needs. That relates back to the question about similar struggles that professionals across all art forms in the sector face. The Culture Ireland model is definitely worth looking at in a context of what is right for Scotland.
Yes—while being mindful of the constraints that we have.
I thank the panel members for your evidence and your campaigning efforts on these issues. On the issue of a cultural touring agreement, it would be remiss of me not to mention that the shadow secretary of state for culture, media and sport has committed a future Labour Government to negotiating an EU-wide cultural touring agreement, which would include carnet, cabotage and customs. The evidence that we are getting this morning is that there is an urgent need for action on that issue.
In the meantime, witnesses have laid out a lot of evidence about the impact that the situation is having on income and career progression, and you have highlighted a range of evidence from other organisations in relation to that. Is there a need for the UK Government to carry out a full long-term assessment of the impact of the current situation, so that there can be greater recognition of and agreement on the need to address the issue?
Yes.
Thank you.
11:00
There are UK Government initiatives that need to help culture. Without cultural tax credits, many organisations in the UK would not be surviving at the moment, but more could be done through the taxation system. To give you just one example, we could work with the UK Government to get an employers national insurance exemption for culture. There are VAT cultural exemptions for tickets and there are tax credits for culture. The problem is that, in this country, 90 per cent of cultural workers are self-employed. They do not have the security of employment, because organisations simply cannot afford to employ them. All sorts of anomalies exist in culture. London orchestras operate on a self-employed basis—they do not pay all the employer add-ons. I am in competition with them and, as an employer, I have to pay employers national insurance.
We could lobby the UK Government to model a system for exemption from employers national insurance, which would bring more cultural workers into employment. Any financial gain from organisations could be recycled so, potentially, the Treasury could have the same take.
There are things that could be done in the taxation system and the subsidy system, as well as everything else. No stone should be left unturned in looking at how to support and advance cultural workers.
Anything that we can do to assess the current situation would be welcome. An important part of that is looking at the current situation as a whole. As we have heard from other witnesses today, and as we know as a union, some musicians have left the industry because of the impacts of Brexit, combined with the impact of Covid and all the other stuff that has been going on. Any assessment of the current situation must find a way to recognise the people who have left and understand why they left, which is a difficult thing to do. To just take a snapshot now risks missing an impact that has already been felt by the industry, which is a really important narrative, alongside what musicians are currently facing.
I always welcome research but not at the expense of action. Often, research is used as a way of delaying activity. With regard to the UK-wide situation, a lot of research has already been conducted by UK Music, Live music Industry Venues & Entertainment and the agents associations. There is a lot of research out there already, so I would welcome it, but not at the expense of an intervention, which is urgently needed now.
Lisa Whytock has mostly covered what I was going to say. Any more research to establish the impact would be welcome, but we can already see that there has been a significant impact, so what is needed urgently is action. We absolutely support what Neil Bibby said about the Labour Party position on the cultural touring agreement to include carnet exemptions, which would be fantastic. Although more research is welcome, we can see that there has been a significant impact on the industry. What is needed now is action.
You have given us a very honest and stark view of the industry that you all represent and are trying to maintain and sustain. I suspect that, without some of the interventions that you are asking for, the industry or many organisations will be at a tipping point with regard to what might happen next. We have already touched on what might be required to get some financial support. We have touched on the issue of the 90 out of 180-day rule with regard to visas. That would give you some hope, if such areas could be managed and maintained.
What other opportunities do you see, if any, with regard to challenging the situation and where you want the sector to go? The sector is in a dire situation and needs help to progress.
Each of you has talents in your own sector. Are you doing anything collectively to try to make progress or to challenge? We have opportunities here to tackle the Government. Is anyone within your own sectors coming forward with potential solutions? We have heard about some of those this morning, which is really encouraging, but are there others? What are other parts of the world doing in similar situations? Are they doing something that we could support or copy, or does everything have to come from the Government side and from the funding mechanisms that we control here? Is that the only opportunity that we have?
I can talk about the RSNO, but every organisation I know has been resourceful and entrepreneurial in trying to balance public subsidy with increased commercial income. The RSNO has invested £1 million in a facility in Glasgow that enables us to bid for film, television and video game recordings. The music for Denzel Washington and Sylvester Stallone’s most recent films was recorded in Glasgow and we had Kevin Costner in the building for five days. That is crucial income, but it also puts Scotland’s national orchestra in a global position because anyone who goes to a cinema anywhere in the world to watch those films hears Scotland’s national orchestra.
Those contracts are a game changer for us but we can win them because we have a world-class facility and an amazing orchestra, and we have those things because of Scottish Government support. That is what puts us in the game. Without that, we would not be competitive.
We have spoken about what we could do with visa waivers or carnets. Those things are all important and I understand the funding crisis that we are all facing, but we get more or less the same Government subsidy as we did in 2008 and we are on a cliff edge now. I hate to say this to you, but we have the lowest starting salary of any UK orchestra and if my colleagues from Scottish Ballet or Scottish Opera were here, they would tell you the same thing. We are running organisations that pay lower salaries than anywhere else in the UK. How long can we sustain our quality if that continues?
I know that that is a blunt thing to say and I understand that funding is difficult for you, but it is important to say that and not to suggest that we can navigate the problem with entrepreneurial initiatives or waivers for European touring. Europe is a really competitive marketplace for orchestras. If we want to get into the top halls in Europe, we have to compete with orchestras from Berlin and Amsterdam that have way more subsidy than we do, which allows them to ask for less money and to have really great musicians.
I assure you that the RSNO is not alone. We are trying everything we can to generate more income and be more entrepreneurial. For us, that means film, television and video game scores.
Does anyone else want to add to that?
Musicians are entrepreneurial. Along with Help Musicians, we published a musicians census earlier this year, which found that the average income a musician earns from working in music is £20,700 a year, while 43 per cent of those who responded reported that they earned less than £14,000 a year.
Musicians, sometimes against their best interests, will make music for the love of music. We think that they should be paid for their work and should be able to make a living. Sometimes the difference between being able to go to Europe and tour or not being able to do so is whether you will make any money from merch, but if you have to register for VAT in every nation that you go to, that is a barrier that makes going there almost impossible.
We work with UK Music, with LIVE—Live music Industry Venues and Entertainment—and with FIM, the International Federation of Musicians. We lobby through them, on behalf of our members, and we listen to our members and encourage them to come to us when they face challenges so that we are aware of those and can come to places like this to report those challenges to you.
I have not arrived here today naive enough to think that you in this committee or this place will be able to solve all the problems that we have outlined, but it is really important that we underline the things that you are already aware of, and I am sure that you are already aware of much of what we have said today.
We will continue to lobby here, and at Westminster, Stormont and Cardiff. We are working on behalf of our musicians and members with as many organisations as we can that will listen to us, and we will continue to do that.
I echo that point. Musicians are resilient and resourceful. Through the Showcase Scotland Expo, we approach commercial sponsors and PRSF. We look at every revenue stream that there is. Artists do that, too. There is a cost of living crisis, however, and commercial sponsorship opportunities have waned drastically: they just do not exist like they used to.
The committee should examine the possibility of establishing an international touring fund for musicians. I reiterate that, although there are funds out there, such a touring fund does not exist at the moment, and musicians are not able to access the majority of the funds that exist for touring. You would not need to fund an artist forever, however. It would be a matter of providing seed funding for the first two to three tours of any nation, by which time the tour will be commercially sustainable and the artist will no longer need investment. That allows resources to be used in a strategic way, intervening at a critical point in the artist’s career.
Before Brexit, most artists did not apply to Creative Scotland for tour funding, because they did not need it. The cost of living crisis did not exist, Brexit did not exist and we did not have the perfect storm of coming out of Covid. Indeed, the sector and the industry are still in recovery from Covid. I would not want the committee or the Scottish Government to think that every artist would need to be subsidised for the duration of their career in order to do international touring. That is not what is needed; what is required is strategic intervention, sensibly utilised to maintain the professional artists that we have and to ensure that professional musicians can come through in the future, which is the bit that I am really concerned about.
Skills shortages, which I have mentioned already, is another area where we are struggling. Bectu has been looking into vocational training for members and has been trying to skill people up to fill the skills gaps, helping colleagues to diversify their income by, for example, training someone who works primarily in music to work elsewhere. There is so much cross-pollination of workers, particularly in technical roles, among theatres, music, live events and screen.
People should be able to have a career in music. Unfortunately, however, they are also having to try and get money from elsewhere. We are trying to help members with training, to fill skills gaps and bring new entrants into the industry.
Thinking back to the Brexit debate, two scenarios were set out: one was that we would reach sunny uplands, full of opportunity, with no or very little regulation. On the other side, it was said that Brexit would be an enormous act of self-harm. I am getting a distinct impression from the sector about which of those two scenarios you feel is being played out. Perhaps this sector, more than any other, shows the folly of cutting ourselves off from a huge market right on our doorstep. It is depressing to hear some of the stories about people who have stopped working in their profession or stopped performing or touring.
I have two quick questions. The first is the extent to which the things that we have been discussing were predicted or predictable. Was it possible to know that those things were going to happen, or have some of them become apparent subsequently? What proportion of things does that apply to—if you can make a guesstimate of that? That question is for any member of the panel.
My second question is specifically for Lisa Whytock. I was quite surprised at this, but I am new to the committee, so this might be something that everyone else knows. You said that Scotland was too small a country to sustain full-time musicians. If that is the case, is there a cut-off in country sizes for the ability to sustain full-time musicians? Do you have an idea of what size of country would be able to do that?
11:15
It is difficult to give you the size of a country, but Scotland is a small nation for a musician to sustain a professional income. As Alice Black rightly pointed out, that does not just concern the musicians; it involves the infrastructure and the managers and technicians who support the musicians. People need to be performing full time, for most of the year, to sustain their income. In Scotland, only the major cities can resource artists performing and provide artists with an adequate level of income from concerts. Looking at our festival circuit, there are not many major festivals for our musicians outwith the Edinburgh festivals, which are not really music based.
It is therefore imperative that artists are able to earn a living outwith Scotland. At Showcase Scotland Expo we include exports to mean England, Ireland and Wales, because that is exporting our artists from Scotland, but that also includes the European market, critically. Germany is one of the largest markets in the world for touring and for merchandising sales. Ewan Robertson indicated Skerryvore’s situation when the band toured Germany recently. It only just broke even. It is really important to understand that musicians have to be able to perform and sell albums outside Scotland if they are to maintain a living.
We find that other countries in Europe that are the same size as us, such as Norway, Sweden and Finland, and their Governments all take a proactive approach to exporting their artists. They have a music export office, and they have music export touring funds to support those artists, certainly in their first ventures overseas.
We are not the only nation in the world that is small, and I would like to say that we punch above our weight talentwise. Currently, our musicians are massively respected in Europe. We are not alone in our size, but we are alone in that we do not have the same solutions that those other small nations have.
I invite any member of the panel to comment on the things that have had a big effect that have become apparent since Brexit that were perhaps not predicted or predictable beforehand.
Most things were perfectly predictable. The ability of an orchestra to move freely in Europe gave individuals immense opportunities. The effect there was predictable. On cabotage, we had all assumed that there would be an exemption, so not achieving that was a surprise. The big things were predictable, while some small things took us by surprise.
To add something about the size of the country, there are very few venues in Scotland that are large enough to host an orchestra. Historically, it was the local council that promoted concerts in large cities such as Aberdeen and Dundee. We got direct support from the local council, or we were hired by the council to present in its halls. That is gone for us now. Even within a small country, the market has dramatically changed for us, because of the change in the funding landscape. It really is a perfect storm.
The one great thing about film and television music is that it is an international marketplace. Touring is also an international marketplace, and such marketplaces are increasingly crucial for balancing our budgets. We often have an engineer and a composer in Los Angeles, while we are recording in Glasgow. We have fast internet in the centre of Glasgow, and we have been very successful in that. There are things that we can do to mitigate against a decline in opportunity in Scotland.
I would love us to be in Aberdeen and Dundee as often as we used to be. We want to be there, but the issue is simply that the local councils do not have the finance to provide us with support for that any more.
I would like to ask a final question, but I am completely out of time, so I will share my thoughts with regard to Mr Brown’s question. In relation to funding, is it fair to compare Scotland as a non-state, if you like, with other states? Would it be fairer to compare Scotland with the Basque Country, Catalonia and some of the Länder? We only have time for yes or no answers.
Could someone double-check this statistic? As I understand it, the average European country puts 1.5 per cent of its gross domestic product into culture, and Scotland puts in 0.6 per cent. It is not just about the size of the country, but about the proportion of funding that is assigned for culture.
Culture has huge economic value but, across the cultural sector, we are not yet good enough at articulating that clearly. We have digital outreach through education. What is the economic benefit of reaching all those kids? We also have work on film scores coming in, so we are on major film soundtracks. What is the economic benefit not just of the income in dollars but of the reputational gain for Scotland? We need to articulate that better and help to persuade decision makers of the economic benefit of culture.
I will have to close the evidence session. We have another agenda item to consider in private, and we have no flexibility on a Thursday because of First Minster’s question time.
I thank all the witnesses for your contributions and the written submissions that you provided to the committee.
11:21 Meeting continued in private until 11:25.Previous
Subordinate Legislation