Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

The first thing to reflect on is that Screen Scotland is part of Creative Scotland. As Mr Adam has just pointed out, Screen Scotland has shown itself to be extremely successful at using the resources that it has to leverage in additional resources for co-production and so on. One reason why we have been keen to give it some more resource is so that it can do even more of that.

We need to reflect on the fact that there are bits of artistic creation that will never make money or be profitable, but are as intrinsically important to our cultural life as those that are commercially viable and successful. That is the eternal tension: it will never go away. We have to try to get the balance right for our cultural life—between the commercial and the non-commercial and the conventional and the less conventional. Some things are not necessarily everybody’s taste or priority, which is why we have an arm’s-length organisation to deal with those things. Mr Adam is right to say that there is a tension.

It is my hope that, in her review, Dame Sue Bruce will be able to point us in the right direction to share understanding from the bits of the cultural ecosystem that are early adopters and forward looking in securing commercial income. We should ensure that organisations that are very good at philanthropy are more widely understood. I think that we can grow the cake.

It is not just that certain institutions are very good at things, so they should just be left to get on with it—we all have an interest in the entire sector thriving. I hope that the review will help us through this period of change, both by signposting different ways of doing things and by providing capacity and support.

We have not talked about skills yet. We must ensure that part of the wider thinking—it is—is about the next generation of people who want to become creatives or work in trades within the culture sector, and their getting the traditional and modern skills to enable them to do so.

That is why this is a really exciting time for us to be getting the funding to where it needs to be, as well as getting in place the architecture around how we administer, fund, educate, skill and promote the entire sector so that all that can be done in the best way possible. This is going to be a very good year with regard to all those aspects.

Yes—currently.

That is a big subject. We need to understand the cultural forces that are leading to changes in use of cultural venues. Cultural venues, high streets and churches—though not exclusively those—are three particular areas where we have seen massively accelerating factors at play that make our public authorities and agencies reflect on what that means for venues.

I am not sure that we have yet got to grips with how we make sure that we retain cultural venues at the level that all communities wish for, or how we make sure that high streets are as vibrant as people wish them to be. The church estate, which has been an important part of community life and history, is being sold off at an accelerating rate.

Those three things were the subject of a conversation that I had yesterday with the new chief executive of Historic Environment Scotland. The conversation was about with whom we need to work and talk about those three things—there will, no doubt, be others—to make sure that there is coherence in dealing with such societal change. With three minutes left in this evidence session, I suspect that we will have to come back to all that, but Ms Mackay can rest assured that I believe that the matter is definitely something that we need to be thinking about.

On accessibility, our having significantly more regularly funded organisations being part of the multi-annual funding programme, the Cultural Collective operating right across Scotland, and the community collective operating as part of a wider offer, will mean that, throughout the country, cultural organisations will have funding so that they can rehearse, perform, have open days, work with schools, work with groups of retirees and so on.

I think that that funding will go some way—I hope it will go a significant way—in relation to the accessibility of culture in localities across Scotland, and that it will also be felt positively by venues across Scotland, whether they are headline culture venues, repurposed public venues or church venues. That is part of what I hope will emerge this year, in relation both to funding and working together with other bodies to make that so.

Yes.