Seòmar agus comataidhean

Maybe Mr Kerr was about to talk about the budget itself—

—and the budget lines in relation to capital. The capital allocation for the National Galleries of Scotland is going up from £4.1 million to £6.2 million. It is important and right that NGS receives more money, because of the pressures that Mr Kerr has outlined. However, as I said in my opening statement, I acknowledge that not everything will be sorted to everybody’s satisfaction in one year. That is why we have committed to raising funding by the amount that we have committed to raising it and to doing so as quickly as possible.

I also said a few moments ago that there is more to be done on the capital allocation. I think that I am right in saying that the National Galleries of Scotland finished its maintenance review in November, which was after the budget considerations were made. I will look closely at all reports from our cultural organisations that require capital support, including the National Galleries of Scotland, and my officials will work closely with that organisation and others to make sure that we can support them all as well as we possibly can.

Dealing with the challenges that we are dealing with at present is a case of doing much more than hoping. We are providing extra resource and support, and we are working closely with all the organisations that are dealing with such challenges. I will be making the strongest case that I can for more capital funding. We have secured a significant increase in funding this year, and we have largely put that into a project that would probably have failed without that support.

If there are any other such projects or any institutions that are suffering from such challenges—there have been a number and, incidentally, they have not closed, because we acted—we will deal with them not on the basis of hope but on the basis of understanding the nature of the challenge and working out what resources are at our disposal. I have signalled that capital funding is a particular challenge, but, notwithstanding that, we have tried to do everything that we can to help organisations. That was the case with the V&A in Dundee, where we intervened to support it as an important institution in Scotland. If there are—

It is for my colleagues to make the case about other parts of Government spending. In relation to the culture budget, however, I really think that this year’s culture budget proposals are transformational and important, and that the sector is expecting, and hoping, that the budget be passed. I share that hope. However, as I have said, I have been at this long enough to know that one knows the result of the vote only when one actually sees it.

I think that the budget will have a transformational impact. At the same time, we are thinking about what changes need to happen in relation to the administration of, and support for, the culture sector more generally. That is why I repeat my point that I am genuinely interested in hearing colleagues’ specific proposals.

My one takeaway for all colleagues, beyond this meeting, is that they should have a look at the survey that has been circulated and share their views. I am sure that Dame Sue will take it all very seriously.

As every member of the Scottish Parliament knows, Mr Adam is a fine ambassador for the city of Paisley. I know his views on city status. He has made a really interesting point. Let us consider how Dundee has been able to redefine itself as a city of design, of which V&A Dundee and other cultural organisations are parts. Indeed, Dundee is a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization city of design. Those things have helped Dundee to tell a story about where it has come from and where it is going, and it is making itself a very attractive place for people to visit, in the meantime. That is a really good model for any town, city or rural area to consider. How is it thinking about culture? How does it reflect what that says? How inviting is it to people from elsewhere to visit? I definitely think that there is something in being more strategic about all that.

If the—alliterative—Paisley pilot is going to be the way to do it, I would, of course, be delighted to work with Mr Adam or colleagues from anywhere else who feel that the convening power of Government should be used to bring together Scottish Government and its agencies, local government and its agencies, the third sector and the local cultural community as parts of an initiative. I would be very interested in thinking and reflecting on that.

I will write to Mr Bibby on that point.

Fantastic.

There is a lot in that question, convener.

First, on the wellbeing economy, I want to put on record my appreciation of the many cultural organisations that already do a tremendous amount of work in that sphere. I saw that Neil Bibby was with the Royal Scottish National Orchestra in some of its outreach work; Scottish Ballet will, I think, be in the Parliament shortly, and members might not be aware of the outreach work that it has been doing, along with that of Scottish Opera, the National Theatre of Scotland and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra. Our national performing companies do a lot of outreach work, and that impacts very much on the wellbeing economy. Incidentally, they also tour across Scotland, reaching different places, and it is important that our cultural organisations are able to do so. A lot of good work is currently happening in relation to the wellbeing economy.

However, the question is: is there room to grow with that? Are there any gaps? How do we make sure that, across Government, we understand that this is as relevant in health, in education and in justice as it is in the culture directorate? It is a work in progress, and no doubt you will have me back—along with, perhaps, some of my colleagues from Government—to reflect on the importance of the matter and on the progress that is being made. Can there be more or quicker progress? No doubt there can, and I would encourage that to happen, as I am a strong believer in what culture and the arts can offer society more generally.

On the point about rural areas and the cultural offering in other parts of Scotland, a number of measures and initiatives in the budget are well focused on ensuring that culture is supported across the country. I have talked a couple of times before about the foundational change that we will see through multiyear funding for the culture and arts sector, with organisations the length and breadth of Scotland being supported. At the moment, there are, I think, about 120 regularly funded organisations throughout Scotland, but there is every indication that in Creative Scotland’s forthcoming announcement on multiyear funding—which is dependent on the budget being passed—it will talk about plans to significantly increase the number of organisations, venues, companies, and so on that will be supported across Scotland. That multiyear funding approach will have a significant impact in rural as well as in urban Scotland.

The funding for the Culture Collective and on the community side of things across Scotland will be really important, too. The previous iteration of the Culture Collective did some really excellent work, much of which falls into the space of impacting on the wellbeing economy. That is where you are seeing the double benefit of those changes.

I would point to other elements of the budget—for example, funding for festivals in general. However, expo funding, which is aimed beyond Edinburgh and Glasgow, will have an impact elsewhere. There is support that we want to give festivals; you mentioned one very successful festival that is not in the central belt, and there are many others that I could go on about, but that would not be fair.

There is a lot in the budget proposals that will make a positive impact in general, and a lot that will specifically help the wellbeing economy, as well as support the arts in rural and urban Scotland.

I very much hope that it is set to pass; I genuinely hope that it passes. As all parliamentarians know, there will be certainty on that only once the votes have been cast. Certain parties have suggested that they might countenance voting for the budget and that they would not rule that out, some have said that they might vote against it and some have said that they might abstain. Given the public statements that the parties have made, I would be delighted if the budget is passed. I would prefer it if members decided to vote for it, so that we know that that will happen. Perhaps Mr Bibby might vote for it.

Indeed. That is 100 more organisations than you just suggested.

Again, there is quite a lot in that question.

As I think Jackie Dunbar knows, I lived in Aberdeen for four years when I was a student. Shona Riach, my senior official here, is from Aberdeen as well. We both understand how important the Belmont cinema is for cultural life. Yesterday, I met for the second time the team who are working on the Belmont cinema project. Hugely encouraging progress has been made so far. Public money has gone towards that, which is absolutely the right thing to do. A lot of thinking is going into what needs to happen now when it comes to capital for the project, and what needs to happen after—fingers crossed—the cinema opens. We had a discussion about both those things.

There has been a lot less focus on the issue of capital spending on culture than there has been on revenue. I was discussing that only this morning. When the budget is passed, as we hope that it will be, and we begin to get in place the revenue changes, we will all have to take a much closer view on dealing with the challenge of the limited capital that is at our disposal. In recent years, the capital allocation to the Scottish Government has been hugely problematic. Consequently, that has an impact on different areas of Government spend.

We have done our best. I am sure that colleagues will have noticed that, in the budget, we are contributing an additional £8 million in capital costs towards the Citizens Theatre project in Glasgow. I have previously given evidence to the committee that, when projects have run the risk of failure, a significant part of my and officials’ work in recent years has been to keep open cultural organisations and venues. In significant part, that has related to capital challenges. The increased cost of restoration, building, rebuilding and reopening has made the situation very challenging.

There is no magic wand when it comes to capital. You have heard evidence from other organisations that have significant buildings and maintenance programmes and would wish to have a bigger capital allocation. I, too, would wish to have a much bigger capital allocation for culture. However, we have secured significantly more funding this year than last year, which, in largest part, is going to the Citizens Theatre.

There are other calls on that money. I want to be as supportive as I can, but I do not have a magic wand, and there are other significant projects. The art works project in Granton is the biggest of those—in effect, it is the arts and culture repository of the nation. We need to get that right. There has already been significant investment from the Scottish Government, but there needs to be much more.

I am very interested in being as supportive as I can to the Belmont cinema. If I might abuse my position in having the microphone, convener, I say to any significant economic actors in the north-east that, if they wish to support a very worthy cultural project in the city of Aberdeen, they might support the Belmont cinema in its efforts; they will have our undying thanks for their involvement. I have committed to continuing work on that.

The second question was about what happens if the budget does not pass. If a new budget is not in place by the next financial year, the finances will roll forward every month on the basis of one twelfth of what they were during the previous financial year. The biggest consequence of that would be that there would not be funds for multiyear funding.

The consequences of not passing the budget would be pretty severe. I am working very hard to get agreement, and I have been inviting colleagues from all parties to ensure that they vote for the budget so that we do not get into that territory. I would rather spend my time and effort encouraging colleagues to understand why I think that what is being proposed has been welcomed across Government, particularly in my area of responsibility. In the debate in the chamber on Tuesday, members welcomed the increase in culture funding. Fantastic: let us pass the budget, and let us not have to confront what would happen if the budget was not passed. That is particularly important because of the sequencing and timing of multiyear funding.

The committee is aware that Creative Scotland’s board will be meeting this month, with a view to making an announcement before the end of the month on what it wishes to do at the beginning of the next financial year in April. If we do not have a budget, it will not have the money, so how can we launch one of the biggest-ever changes in funding for Scottish culture? I would rather not have to deal with those circumstances. I have made my point, and I hope that colleagues of all parties realise the consequences. The Government in Scotland is a minority, so it behoves members of other parties to realise that their votes matter, and that it is important to pass the budget.