The State of Heritage – Event Report

BEFS online webinar ‘The State of Heritage 2021-22’ held on 4th February 2021.

Continuing the CHERF series of events, BEFS held a well attended webinar on The State of Heritage 2021-22 with excellent contributions from leaders across the sector discussing the financial, employment and organisational outlook for this coming year. A summary report and comment on the event from BEFS Policy & Strategy Manager Ailsa Macfarlane is available below.

Download the full report here.

Chaired by Prof Ian Baxter, BEFS Vice Chair.

Sharing their organisational perspectives:

  • Caroline Clark, National Lottery Heritage Fund
  • Andrew Hopetoun, Historic Houses Scotland
  • Stuart Brooks, National Trust for Scotland
  • Eithne Ní Chonghaile, Museums Galleries Scotland
  • Alex Paterson, Historic Environment Scotland

Joining them for discussion:

  • Lucy Casot, Museums Galleries Scotland
  • Anna Leask, Napier University
  • Adam Jackson, Historic Environment Scotland
  • Alison Turnbull, Historic Environment Scotland

BEFS extend their thanks to all panellists – their insights, candour, and openness are appreciated; and to all those who attended and provided questions. The collaborative nature of these events is designed to enable the widest understanding of the place we collectively, and individually, find ourselves in during this challenging time. Seeking that knowledge understanding would not be possible without participation from across the sector.

Euan Leitch, BEFS opened, providing an update on the Scottish Government Budget in relation to the sector. BEFS have now provided an overview document of relevant details.

The sector was anticipating harsh and severe cuts, and whilst there are some cuts they appear more marginal than feared. Many areas have a similar budget to last year. Usually, the Budget comes with description of what is to be delivered, particularly by Agencies and Public Bodies. That detail has not been released yet (at time of event).

Caroline Clark, National Lottery Heritage Fund  Brought extensive information and sector context from NLHF’s work in 2020/2021. As an organisation they take a holistic approach to funding, across the breadth of heritage, as it’s perceived by applying organisations applying. In reaction to the pandemic, they moved from project funding to heritage emergency support funding – it was imperative to be able to fund where there was most need. This funding programme provided substantial sector information, analysis was provided in Evidence to the Culture Committee (evidence was also provided in those papers by Abbotsford Trust, HES and NTS).

Analysis of cashflows from bids (105 organisations were awarded £6.4M over summer 2020), assessed that there was a £24-29M financial gap for the sector for the end of financial year. This was most likely to be hitting revenue support due to Covid, the recapitalising of reserves was also a significant factor. Further in-depth interviews were carried out, these highlighted:

  • loss of volunteering
  • costs of social distancing measures
  • viability concerns though loss of revenue

NLHF  Small Grants programme is now live and insights from the 28 community organisations making  enquiries (£1.6M ask) suggests a focus on wellbeing, inclusion, and community activism in the world of heritage. This reflects the local connections to place that have been highlighted in this time of crisis.

Caroline reiterated the concerns raised to the Culture Committee around the need need to examine the Local Authority sector and the impact these financial challenges will be having on their culture infrastructure.

NLHF is seeing:

  • Real challenges for capital funding projects currently in delivery.
  • Strong shift to digital from some organisations – often those larger/more secure. Harder for smaller, community, and rural heritage sectors.
  • Loss of volunteers and volunteering activity continuing to be a significant issue.
  • Concern over the ending of furlough.
  • The health of the work force is also a real issue.
  • A lack of ‘head-space’ and ability for organisations to make strategic decisions
  • A moving picture, where collaboration and partnership will be pivotal to future sustainability
  • Anecdotally – Boards feel more risk averse; big change/large capital projects seem unlikely. Perhaps for 2-3 years as the effects of both Covid and Brexit reveal themselves more fully.

Difficult to forecast the future, NLHF main grant programmes are only just reopening. Applications will provide more insight for the ambitions of the sector.

NLHF is aware of the complexity of the picture,  the need for funders to stay agile and flexible; weighing up the support for those in delivery and facing challenges, with new programmes, and how best to support communities.

Caroline stressed the responsibility to listen and be responsive to sector need. Especially to remember to listen for the silences, the quiet slipping away as capacity dwindles in fragile organisations.

Andrew Hopetoun, Historic Houses Scotland  Reflected on the outlook, mindful that it is hard to strike a balance between the negative, and the agility and resilience of Members to adapt.

Historic Houses surveyed members in December 2020.  Members represent the largest collection of historic houses and gardens with 1500 property Members.  60% of Members usually open throughout the year,  with a third open for day visitors in the traditional way. The survey revealed:

  • 15% of those usually open, didn’t open at all in 2020
  • Scale of those who did open extremely reduced:
    • Less than a quarter of their usual season for 50% of properties
    • A third had only half a season
    • Only 10% managed something that looked relatively normal.
  • Membership reported 75% reduction in visitors
  • Turnover dropped to around 50%
  • Estimated losses across HH Members UK wide – £280M, with expectation this will rise.

Those were severe results across the Membership.

  • 50% of Members reported no support apart from the job retention/furlough scheme.
  • 2/3 of members reported no or minimal repairs and maintenance occurring.
    • Previously Scottish Membership reported a backlog of £60M of urgent repairs, this will have increased.

In the case of Hopetoun House, measures such as furlough, CBILS, and grants from HES & NLHF have helped to weather the crisis. There is still a six-figure impact on the business, difficult for any charity.

There were high points: Wondrous Woods – outdoor event drew 30K visitors from a wide spread of demographics – and importantly provided 100+ people with employment. Numbers meant that Hopetoun received over 50% of usual visitor numbers.

The HH Member survey suggested that when most properties would usually expect to open at Spring/Easter 2021, this season only 82% are planning to open. A positive point from respondents has been that paying visitors were more appreciative of the grounds and gave more feedback. Members are considering how their outdoor offering may change to reflect visitor responses.

Looking to the future, the current uncertainty remains difficult. Visit Scotland are attempting to promote tourism. Balance remains difficult to find: the risks is that we find ourselves with tourism promotion, overshadowed by safety measures which depress demand; or the opposite, that undercooked safety measures do not aid a sustained recovery, which is significantly worse. It is of note that UK Hospitality sees holiday bookings 90% down on last year.

Across HH about 13% of those 15,000 employed were made redundant in 2020. The survey also suggests same number at risk again this year. This helps to illustrate the devasting, personal, and multi-season impact which may be felt across so many parts of the sector.

Whilst Members are willing to act as necessary and remain adaptable, there are clouds of concern leading to nervousness and cautiousness – particularly for the events/wedding aspects of the sector, overnight accommodations (particularly with new implications from regulations and licences for short-term lets being agreed the Local Government Committee recently),  and access takers leading to some surges in bad behaviour and crime in some instances.

Like many, HH are actively lobbying for a heritage recovery plan. This includes such measures as: Extension of relief schemes; support for specific areas (eg – support for wedding sector was extremely welcome); and VAT parity/reduction.

Stuart Brooks, National Trust for Scotland Was honest about the catastrophic impacts for NTS. Giving a detailed overview of the far reaching pandemic effect on the organisation.

There were periodic closures of all built properties – challenges even assessing/maintaining/accessing more remote sites (St Kilda).

  • Countryside remained open, gardens first to re-open
  • 88% drop in visitor income
  • 60% drop in holiday cottage income
  • 72% down on total visitors -biggest impact from paying visitors and travel trade –countryside less impacted
  • 230 staff redundancies – most significant is the loss of colleagues (430 staff were at risk)
  • Cancellation or postponement of projects –maintenance & rural paths impacts
  • Projecting significant deficits for 2021 & 22

Visitor profiles changed, some completely – with Overseas Visitors – down to 1.3% from 24%. UK visitors (from both Scotland and England) rising significantly.

There were also some more positive outcomes.

It forced NTS to accelerate change

  • Membership has been loyal (10% down – but better outcome than expected)–invested in digital and other engagement
  • Members and public responded to emergency appeal – £3.5M –emphasised NTS charitable cause
  • Remote working has enhanced efficiency, improved communications and reduced carbon emissions
  • Visitor experience predominantly positive
  • NTS kept people safe (new protocols produced and implemented)
  • Bring forward strategic review
  • Positive response and financial support from Scottish Government – enabled reinstatement of some key projects

Able to consider the visitor experience during Covid.  91% very happy with visitor experience during Covid and almost 80% reported a similar or more positive experience due to Covid measures.

Overall the impacts for NTS are felt –

Across heritage:

  • Buildings maintenance & repairs delayed – hopefully short term
  • Gardens –potential weed legacy
  • Countryside –requirement for education and infrastructure investment if numbers sustain
  • Delayed investment –future impact

Across the charity:

  • Big measures – from catastrophic to manageable
  • Reserves depleted
  • Enhanced value and relevance
  • Better appreciation of charitable status and need for support
  • A platform that can be built on – optimistic outlook

Across our people:

  • Impacts on people is the hardest. Staff mental health is low and fatigue is setting in – this is the hardest aspect, especially with a tricky year in view.

The following detail was provided after the event due to time constraints on the day.

NTS Short term

  • Planning for partial income recovery and phased reopening (timing under threat/review)
  • Assumed domestic market permissible and willing
  • New 10 year strategic plan in development for 2022
  • Greater focus on dynamic risk management and contingency planning

Legacy for NTS

  • People’s value of access to greenspace and digital –align and promote social outcomes, including health
  • More efficient and climate friendly ways of working
  • Greater emphasis on partnership working
  • Resilience and relevance are totems

Issues on the Horizon

  • Planning in a period of extreme uncertainty
  • Short notice -easing of lockdown measures, any foreign market, knock-on from city based tourism
  • Absence of furlough and short notice -adds to risk of loading costs
  • Political uncertainty -Post Brexit and Scotland
  • Keeping our workforce safe –matching staff to vaccination programme
  • Mental health and fatigue

Eithne Ní Chonghaile, Museums Galleries Scotland  Strongly echoed what we’d heard – the challenges are still there. Many recovery schemes were designed prior to current restrictions and closures are now lasting longer,  and are deeper than might have been expected.

ASVA Survey – visitor numbers at Scottish attractions down 72% last year compared to previous year. And Museum & Galleries figures was down 77%. Peak of 160 Museums open in October 2020, from 440 potential sites. The reality is that most of the Museums sector faces full calendar year closed.

MGS is grateful for additional, sector funding support from the Scottish Government – MGS distributed 290 grants worth £5.8M supporting 200 museums last year.  With much of that funding coming from the £4M Recovery and Resilience Fund for independent museums.  £3.1M additional funding has recently released from Scottish Government and an additional second round of funding is now open.

With reduced visitor numbers and reduced visitor spend, as well as restrictions – many museums will still be unable to open should social distancing be in place.  Safe opening and adaptations has also had a financial impact and MGS has reopened its Covid Adaptation Fund.

Independent Museums and Galleries were a funding priority as it was an extremely hard hit part of the sector. But – emergency funding ends in June, the job retention scheme is due to end in April, and a lot of uncertainty remains. Tourism seems unlikely to recover this year and significant impacts on income continue. The uncertainty impacts on planning exhibitions and activity. Further revenue support will be necessary to ensure survival.

For example:

V&A 2021 – expected numbers 45K – 90% down on a normal year

Industrial Museums survey showed their members expecting 50% income in comparison to 2019.

MGS reiterated the concerned raised by NLHF over the health of the civic sector (125 museums run by Local Authority and Arms-Length cultural bodies). This vulnerable section of the sector is not able to apply for funding in the same way as independent museums. And their current predicament is set in the context of a decade of reduced revenue funding and reductions in staff numbers. The biggest operator in this field is Glasgow Life, and it saw visitor numbers reduce from 3.4M to under 70k – these figures do not allow for viable reopening with the consequential knock-on for catering, and additional services. As non-statutory services, they are at the bottom of funding priorities, this is despite growing visitor numbers and contributions to their local places and communities far beyond their traditional remits. Further squeeze on these sites, as Local Authority budgets remain stretched, is to be expected.

As places providing access to the stories of communities across extensive periods of time, museums and galleries are unique contributors to the identity of place; locally, regionally and nationally. The loss of these local venues will have a detrimental effect on local places for years to come.

The uncertainty has deep impacts on workforce health. MGS worked from the start to enable informal workforce connections, as well as providing free mental health and wellbeing sessions with Solve. Organisations have expressed concerns as to how to bring people together who have very different pandemic experiences. Organisations also express challenge in finding the capacity and headspace for strategic planning.

Looking ahead, MGS will be continuing to advocate for the sector and to advocate for further financial support. Partnerships have been key to their work this year, the skills, learning, information sharing has been essential to successes, and will continue. MGS launched their sector Delivery Plan days before moving to home-working –  and the 4 areas of focus remain relevant (workforce development; digital development; sector resilience; and response to the climate emergency).

Over the year MGS has seen the sector adapt demonstrating: organisational agility, digital expansion, live-learning events, and skills training and employability provision. MGS’ own training programmes remained live, and they are now a gateway for the Government Kick-start scheme. The Surviving to Thriving programme run by MGS in partnership with greenspace scotland and BEFS welcomed the successful participating organisations this month.

MGS know the future funding environment will look different – Museums will need to innovative and collaborate. MGS also know that funding will be necessary during this time to enable that adaptation from recovery to resilience.

Alex Paterson, Historic Environment Scotland Brought a philosophical macro-view on commonalities across the sector, carefully considering more specifically where we find ourselves now, and where we might be moving towards.

Where we are: Challenging times remain. In CHERF during June (2020) it felt like a glimmer of change and hope as things began to reopen. Now, we’re still dealing with the pandemic consequences.

This sector, like so many others, is the beneficiary of numerous support schemes, support which will be needed for some time to come. HES has been one of those beneficiaries. Evidence HES presented to the Culture Committee expressed some of the challenges. The impact on HES has been huge:

  • 85% of commercial income expected to disappear
  • 900 colleagues on furlough
  • Edinburgh Castle 2.1M visitors in 2019/20 reduced to – 277K in 2020/21

Income from Scottish Government has enabled HES to support others through their grant schemes. Many challenges with current projects have been seen – and flexibility has been necessary. The Historic Environment Recovery Fund distributed 41 awards totalling just under 2M. These support schemes have been, and remain, critical.

Alex spoke about the wider ripple effect – another angle appears to this situation with regularity. The suppliers, caterers, researchers, specialist organisations of all kinds, – within and without the sector – the whole eco-system are all affected. Only as the sector reopens (when it can reopen) will we know more about the state of these organisations too.  Skills training has been impacted, with recruits down; repair and maintenance is delayed – growing a backlog of work, but also with assessment of some sites unable to take place.

Consequences over the longer-term on our built environment will also be seen. Consequences of home working, the effects of online worship, changing living and working patterns will affect our towns and cities. A year ago, the impacts we might have been discussing would have focused on Brexit – and those impacts too, need consideration. Our supply-chains, state-aid rules, structural funds and future investments will all be impacted.

Looking forward: Returning to the Budget – most parts of the budget for this sector were, as good, or better than could have been expected.

The real challenge is how to plan, there are more variables than we are used to and a lack of control over those variables. What assumptions can we (all) make – over visitor numbers, over opening of sites, over income?

What it means for HES: In 2021/22 HES will continue to be ambitious, but with realism and pragmatism playing their role, prioritising and controlling costs. HES will focus on core business and core purpose. What core business looks like has also changed – use of digital technologies and other routes to market have become more significant. Building core business will not be what was had before – but will a major part of the future focus.

2021/22 is an unusual year. Unless there is dramatic change there will not huge numbers of international visitors. The market will be primarily domestic visitors. This will be a distinctive year and a different offer and new engagement will be needed.

There is an opportunity as a sector – we can do more, and say more, about the relevance of what we do collectively out-with the sector. How does what we do contribute to the wider economic recovery, and how do we articulate more effectively how this sector contributes to other critical priorities around wellbeing, reducing inequalities, and the community and place making agendas? There is more to say around our work in relation to the future of sustainable tourism, and the response to the climate emergency.

We have an opportunity to promote the relevance of what we do and the wider contribution we make.


Panel Discussion – Chaired by Ian Baxter

Alex Paterson had another commitment, the panel was joined by Adam Jackson and Alison Turnbull from Historic Environment Scotland, as well as Lucy Casot from Museums Galleries Scotland, and Anna Leask from Napier University.

Initial thoughts were drawn from Lucy and Anna.

LC: Easy to focus inwards, on own organisation, and own issues. Now critical to seek to work together,  to work collectively, across heritage. We can learn from each other and have broad discussions that benefit place-based approaches. Partnership working needs to be prioritised. Difficult to find this balance between the day-to-day with strategic thinking for the future.

AL: The range of speakers emphasised the breadth and diversity of the sector, and the close and complex relationship between heritage and tourism. There has been a lack of understanding about the sector, not just things like charitable status, but also eligibility for funding stemming from diversification of offer. This lack of understanding was even seen in relation to social distancing – visitor attraction sites had 2m rules when  hospitality and entertainment had 1m.

We also heard about people: The stresses on staff, the flattening of hierarchies, how to skills, and upskill. Concerns remain around volunteers, particularly the older age profile. And visitors themselves have changed – the focus is now on domestic, and also where concentrations of visitors have perhaps led to rural concerns.

But the response from the sector has been phenomenal, finding ways through funding (which is complex), adapting and innovating, providing new experiences.

Audience Questions were taken in order of submission.

Question: on Connectivity and the Rural/Urban divide.

SB: Digital connectivity as a focus has been a challenge but it calls for speed of change so that rural communities can fully participate.

AT: HES thinking about their own national footprint, considering their properties in care and sites, as hubs in their communities. HES accelerated their own work, and moved to working remotely. HES have a Digital strategy being reviewed at the moment. The pandemic has highlighted issues around digital divide, which the Scottish Government are also addressing. We need to work with partners that we’ve never worked with before. We don’t often come together like this, and we need to make more opportunities.

LC: Needed to fund the community museums too. Their value as hubs is very important. Those with connectivity have found this a benefit in some ways, the lack of need to travel, and the ability for all to have equitable participation – those lessons need to remain key.

AH: greater impetus from this situation to find solutions and be willing to invest in those.

Question: Tourism and heritage – how we see the balance – sustainable funding for projects. Change in markets. Etc

CC: Complex picture within Scotland. Different visitor markets across different places, remote/urban etc. Seen a flourishing in creative and innovative ways moving from what was developed for tourism market to delivering deep social benefits to hard hit local communities. Need to not lose these powerful connections. A real richness that shouldn’t be lost. Demonstrates how the sector can deliver wellbeing – not just locally but more widely.

Tourism is a big employer for young people in rural places, rural connectivity can enable young people to stay in their communities. We’ve seen so many clever solutions and  perhaps the increasing of opportunities and can be kept.

AL: Data up to 2019 a large amount is domestic (70%) in terms of volume, value is higher for international. But domestic positives: short lead time, less seasonality, wider age spread too. A lot to be said for domestic market. Challenges appear with travel restrictions – limited international can still bring domestic difficulties. Opportunities – for the future – visiting friends and relatives is key to changes. Local people visiting local places. More value being seen by communities and individuals. Pushing at an open door, how to develop and what people want in their local places. Developing different markets. Educating visitors to understand what they’re supporting. But infrastructure needs grow with some of this.

SB: No-one wants a dependence on any particular segment of the visitor sector. Value all of these sectors and interest, there is a financial value attached to that. How can organisations best utilise the income and the value to make their properties more relevant and reduce barriers to access.

AH: ties into further question – historic properties can focus on tourism/weddings/events/catering/retail etc Financial Support can be tailored (eg Wedding or Outdoor businesses – 50-75% of income needs to come from that to be eligible) – diversification can prevent some organisations from being eligible.

Question: About freelancers – designers/conservators all sorts of freelance workers (ICON producing own survey)  AJ: Aware of the data gap – HES working with Skills Development Scotland to get data in relation to sector skills areas.

Question: What trends have organisations seen in donations/giving trends?

SB: NTS seen 10% drop in monetary value from Membership. But this is viewed as not being able to recruit new members, rather than being over and above usual churn. Need to find value for members with new and different online events. In terms of general donations, people’s generosity has shown that people do care, support what we do. See the value in us.

EnC: National Museums highlighted that their drop was severe and problematic. Many organisations considering how to make new experience content and make it relevant to their audiences.

Question: Working with UK: Much support comes from UK Government and this reflects the difference in available resource. Do we need to be working more closely with the rest of the UK to make the sector’s case to the UK govt?

AJ: Answer is yes. HES part of UK wide group where HE, THA, BEFS, CADW, NI Communities Directorate meet regularly. Focus started with Brexit, then Covid. An open knowledge exchange, sharing opportunities and hear what’s working in terms of  influence. The Heritage Alliance regularly meet with DCMS and put the case  for the sector forward. Fair reflection that strength of that relationship with Westminster is perhaps stronger than we might sometimes have in Scotland.

LC: Parallel alliance of UK museums, similar to built-heritage sector. Story is often not distinct, UK wide advocay is important. New budget money will be from consequentials.

CC: In other parts of UK work with DCMS/DEFRA. In last year, in Scotland, work with Scottish Government and partners. The structures are there, the conversations are happening.

Question: We do good work but are we making our information sharable, in the infographic sense, like Heritage Counts?

AT: All tried individual pieces of work for this. Need to pool our efforts, and work together, to influence and get our evidence in front of elected members.

AL: Sector is collecting data but making it useful remains a challenge. The use of terminology, the lack of understanding are connected to the data question. Tourism always seeks better, more reliable data, but this does need leadership. ASVA/ALVA – STA–  have used data well and linked into STERG taskforce. Need good data leadership, need to feed heritage data into existing organisations.

SB: NTS is now trying to look at the longer term. Commissioning a Social and Economic Impact assessment at property level – they’re working on their own case and insight into the value they bring. Will be willing to share in terms of methodology and results. A fundamental piece of learning. Want to fill gaps, deliver more value, and where are their spatial gaps . Sector could think about this more broadly.

Questions remained – due to time pressures:

  • How to expand greater inclusion in Volunteering. Are there HES plans in this area?
  • Collaborations – and where they can happen?
  • Infrastructure and how to put grant conditions on things like EV charging points etc… Make physical and intellectual changes.
  • Regulator
  • Plans for maintenance – and how to protect assets.
  • How advocacy groups meet and continue these conversations?
  • What about the rest (non-asset) of the sector: How about academia? Skills creation etc have all suffered.

In closing Ian Baxter asked Euan Leitch for final thoughts:

Responses make it clear we’re still in the midst of this.  Are we in the space of thinking the unthinkable? At the OPiT CEO Forum a desire was expressed to have those big, open strategic conversations, but  real space was desired for the discussion where nuance and body-language can be more easily read and expressed. It doesn’t feel like we’re in that space yet.

BEFS want to be able to provide the space for conversation, and dramatic change. The problems are immediate, but we can take the conversation and work on how to move it forward. Previous ideas submitted post the initial series of CHEF meetings were good ideas, but they were not new ideas. It feels like there is new thought out there, and new ideas to be had. We hope to be in that space soon, enabling transparent discussions.

Ian Baxter:  BEFS will commit within CHERF to continuing the conversation, and examining the relationship between tourism and heritage, but there is the wider conversation between the historic environment and communities and people, and skills, and identity. The economics of heritage can be dominated by tourism – but we need to pull those strands out in a nuanced way.

Thanks were given to all across the sector and allied sectors. Appreciating the collaboration that has taken place. We will work towards understanding what the future looks like – both thinkable, and unthinkable.


I was concerned that whilst the report would be entitled the State of Heritage I would be commenting on the stasis of heritage.

Having been involved with previous CHERF events, and the subsequent reports, I initially wondered if we were understandably rooted in the same conversations about emergency situations and unprecedented times. With further thought and the opportunity to relisten to the astonishing breadth and depth of information shared, I find myself reflecting that the job losses are not stasis, the organisational survival is not stasis; the adaptation, the new ways of working, and the learning; these are not stasis.  The resilience remaining comes at a price. But the proof that change can happen, that adaptation occurs when needed, exists. How we harness this flux towards the positive, rather than as a reaction to the negative will be the ultimate measure. We are living through these changing times (personally and professionally), so may find it hard to notice the more incremental and monumental shifts happening all around us. We’re often too close to gain true perspective.

The call came from all sides for more collaboration, more open working. The offers to share data, information, and skills were freely given. Collective action and collaboration were championed. We were asked how these conversations can continue? How we can form the spaces for strategic thought and find the head-space for radical change?

The good news is, we are – we are doing all these things – as the reports from across the sector bore testament to. These collaborations and partnerships are happening. The adaptations are taking place. We’re making our relevance to the social, economic, cultural and climate agendas known. We’re learning new ways of working, and considering how to make sure these are more equitable, listening to the silences, not just the shouting. We can’t fix every related issue (from rural broadband to societal inequalities) but we know to consider our outcomes within those limitations, and who to ask for help in achieving the best aims for all.

The fact we’re asking for the very things we’re doing suggests an appetite for more rapid change and development. And perhaps we do need to prioritise, to find more time to balance the day-to-day with the strategic, to help increase the velocity of our progress.

The greatest outcomes have involved sharing information, asking for assistance, and working collaboratively and collectively, to share our knowledge, our experience, and our skills – all in the name of emergency measures. Can we now make these actions our business as normal, for the ambition of delivering excellence, rather than surviving emergency.

Ailsa Macfarlane, BEFS Policy & Strategy Manager

All current evidence supplied to the Scottish Parliament Culture, Tourism,  and External Affairs Committee in relation to the Impact of COVID-19 on Scotland’s Culture and Tourism Sectors can be found here.