Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Adam is right to talk about the wider benefits that the national performing companies provide and to say that they have the commercial opportunity to grow. We have not addressed the wider benefits of culture and the arts and the national performing companies play a leading role in that. Look at what they do in education and outreach, for example. All of them are best in class in what they are aspiring to and in what they are already delivering.

I will go through a couple of examples, just so I can acknowledge them on the record: Scottish Ballet launching itself as a national centre for dance health, Scottish Opera providing long Covid resources, the RSNO’s schools programme, and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra’s residency in Craigmillar—we are talking about communities that might not traditionally feel that they have a connection with the national performing companies or what they perform. I should also mention the National Trust for Scotland and its schools programme.

Our national performing companies do a lot to reach out educationally, culturally, societally and in the health context. Last night, Mr Harvie and I were at a meeting about the benefit of the intervention of our cultural sector on the health of the nation. There was a contribution from an academic in London who spoke about the environmental impact that that has in terms of people feeling a bit better, as well as about metrics that demonstrate the impact of culture. Our national performing companies play a leading role in that. That is one of the reasons why I am so seized of the importance of delivering the resources, so that they are able not just to do that but to do more.

I hope that Mr Kerr will acknowledge that any cabinet secretary or portfolio goes through the budget process seeking to draw down as much as is possible. As I have already said to the committee, it would have been an absolute dream to be able to deliver a £100 million increase in the culture and arts sector in one year. That would have been tremendous, and it would mean that we would not be having this conversation.

However, we have been able to deliver year-on-year increases to the culture and arts sector. As I hope Mr Kerr will appreciate, introducing multiyear funding through Creative Scotland, for the record number of organisations that it has, is a foundational change, which has a very big ticket price. The challenge is to continue to deliver the funding for more than a year, because we have not been able to do that before. That would presume that a Parliament would vote for it and that, if people wanted me to redirect funding from one part of the culture budget to another, they would outline what they think is not worthy of support.

As I have pointed out to the committee, the biggest single item that we are delivering in the increase in this year’s culture budget is the part that is absolutely necessary to deliver multiyear funding. If we were to redirect resources towards the national performing companies in this financial year, it would most likely be at the cost of multiyear funding, and I am not prepared to do that.

10:45

Mr Kerr asked whether I acknowledge that that causes challenges to the national performing companies, and that they may have to make decisions that they consider to be disadvantageous and not do things such as touring and reaching different parts of the country that they would want to do if they had the resources in place. I accept all of that, because I am in regular dialogue with them. I understand what they do, and I am a big supporter of it. I want to be able to give them the resources that they require, to do what they want to do, to reach their full potential as quickly as possible.

I agree.

The first thing to say is that, with the introduction of multiyear-funded organisations, we have been able to reach a significantly larger number of organisations and venues than would have been the case in the past. The number of local authority areas with such organisations or venues has gone up from 21 to 27. However, as you have just noted, that means that, in a small number of local authorities, there are venues or organisations that have either not been successful in their applications or not made applications at all.

Does it concern me that there are a small number of local authorities that have no multiyear-funded organisations or venues? Yes, it does. I should point out that in other areas where we seek to support culture and the arts—and I would point to the youth music initiative as a good example—funding is disbursed to all of Scotland’s 32 local authority areas. However, the difference between the two funding streams and programmes is that one is disbursed through education and the educational infrastructure that exists in all local authorities. That is not the case with multiyear-funded organisations; that funding stream depends on organisations applying for money.

One thing that really caught my attention in the review of Creative Scotland was the opportunity to do more using data—on, for example, which grants are being disbursed, where they are being disbursed, and who they are or are not reaching—to inform exactly that kind of understanding. In the small number of local authority areas where there are no multiyear-funded venues or organisations, is it because that none applied, or did some apply and were not successful? If they were not successful, why were they not successful?

That is actually a responsibility for Creative Scotland, not for me, and there are very strict rules around the role of Government and the role of Creative Scotland in that regard. Nevertheless, I am sure that everybody will aspire to seeing cultural organisations and venues being supported right across the country.

It is also important to bear in mind that the multiyear funding programme is not static, as has been evidenced by the additional number of organisations and venues that have gone from a supported status—in other words, they did not make it through the initial process—to being supported by Creative Scotland, and now to becoming multiyear-funded organisations.

Perhaps members have examples that they can highlight; I do not know, but I would be very interested to hear them. Indeed, I have been asked in the chamber before about why there are no multiyear-funded organisations in certain areas—I have in my memory Willie Rennie asking me about North East Fife. I asked him to provide me with information about any organisations in North East Fife that have sought to be funded but have not been successful. We need to get a better handle on the issues. Is it the fact that organisations have been unsuccessful? In which case, what can be done to support them?

Support has been available. I have in my memory 13 additional organisations or venues that went through that phase. If there are others that are worthy of support and development, particularly if they are in areas where there are not multiyear-funded organisations, that should definitely be considered.

It is also fair to put on the record that many multiyear-funded organisations operate outside the local authority area in which they are headquartered. An organisation in Glasgow, Edinburgh or rural parts of Scotland will also be touring, performing, hiring and so on in other parts of the country, including in those local authority areas that do not currently have a multiyear-funded organisation.

It is also worth having a look at the reach of the creative communities programme and the culture collective, which are two other funding streams that involve projects in different parts of the country and local authority areas.

There is a picture that needs to be understood and I agree that, when more organisations are being supported in this way than has ever been the case, in more local authorities than has ever been the case, we should better understand what we can do next to ensure that success in the overwhelming majority of local authority areas can be enjoyed in all local authority areas.

It is.

I will briefly use Cumbernauld as an example. It is a very strong example of funding not being in place for an organisation or venue and the need to understand the impact on the county. It was put to me very strongly by the constituency member, Jamie Hepburn, that the impact of the closure of Cumbernauld theatre would be that much of North Lanarkshire would not have any provision of that sort, which is much the same as what Mr Brown said about Clackmannanshire. We were very seized of that.

However, as the committee would expect, due diligence needs to take place. There needs to be confidence that organisations or venues that are making applications have plans for how to trade and that they are able to sustain themselves. Those are very important considerations in the process, because it is public money. One has to have confidence that the venues or organisations will be able to deliver what they are applying for.

However, situation in Cumbernauld is a very current case in point about the importance of appreciating the consequences that a closure or a lack of funding for venues or an organisation have for particular parts of the country. That is why significant efforts were made to support a future for Cumbernauld theatre, and that is exactly what happened. I have given the commitment to the committee, and it is my wish, that we have exactly the same focus on parts of the country where there is an absence of multiyear-funded organisations or venues.

Colleagues will look that number up as I begin to answer your question, Mr Kerr, then somebody will row in and give me a number.

First, on the challenge for the national performing companies, in the wider context of what we are trying to do to transform culture funding across the piece, I have said before that it is a bit like turning a tanker. It takes time. I agree with Mr Kerr: I would love to be able to do it all in a oner, but it is just not possible to do that. If anybody were to say to me, “Here’s the route that we could use to make that happen quicker”, I would be all ears. I was called on to deliver a £20 million increase in one recent year—not that long ago—because that was what was required. I was pleased to be able to deliver more than £30 million that year, which has helped to deliver the change that we have seen through multiyear funding.

I acknowledge to Mr Kerr, as I have acknowledged to the national performing companies, that they have not yet seen the increase that they, and I, would wish. Our national performing companies have not seen the introduction of multiyear funding that they, and I, would want to see. However, I give Mr Kerr a direct assurance that that is absolutely at the top of my list of priorities as we move towards the delivery of the last 30 per cent of our committed increase in culture funding. I will be delighted to come back to the committee when we are doing so.

Mr Harvie is absolutely right to recount that the conversations in which I am involved with the national performing companies have already taken place. In fairness, however, my officials are also having on-going discussions with the companies.

It is not just about clarity on the direction of travel. I have made very clear my expectations and where my priorities lie in relation to the increase in next year’s budget to the national performing companies, and I have made clear that I am a very keen supporter of multiyear funding. On both those counts, I want to give as much clarity as I can that that is the direction of travel.

I cannot make a commitment today about exact numbers and the exact format, but I have said to the national performing companies that that has to emerge from a process in which they are involved. We are at the beginning of that process involving the different companies, which have different needs, interests, concerns and expectations.

Yes, there is the general question of what the baseline is and what that means year on year—in a changing environment, incidentally, in which some of our national performing companies have become very much more commercially successful. Nevertheless, we need an ordered process through which we can understand how support can be best allocated to the national performing companies, and that proces has begun.

That will be done in partnership with Creative Scotland. On how we can report back, I will need to take a view on our response to the review. As I said, I have received the review positively, so that is a strong signal to the committee that we will try to do as much of what we have been advised to do as we can. I look forward to seeing Creative Scotland’s detailed feedback on those points—

I already outlined to the committee the numbers and the amount of financial support, and where there have been increases. I have already said that—

I have provided the detailed numbers, and that includes increases for the national performing companies. Is it everything that they, or I, would wish it to be? No. However, am I focused, in the budgetary cycle, on providing an increase for the national performing companies? Yes, I am. Is it under discussion with the companies? Yes, it is. Am I trying to do that in a multiyear funded context? Yes, I am.