Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I am delighted that Mr Bibby is predicting a Scottish National Party victory in the Scottish—

I do have an answer: it is £471,000.

Going back to the point about delivering increases in culture funding, I am committed to doing that, and we are doing it. The national performing companies are at the top of my list.

I join you and other members in paying tribute to the national performing companies, but I point to the fact that there has been a shared uplift of £1 million, which follows an uplift of £700,000 in the previous year. That is a 9.4 per cent uplift since 2023-24.

There is an awareness of the scale of the support for the national performing companies because it is significant. It is almost £25 million shared across the five companies, with Scottish Opera receiving £8.64 million, followed by Scottish Ballet on £4.86 million, the National Theatre of Scotland on £4.53 million, the Royal Scottish National Orchestra on £4.398 million and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra on £2.187 million. The level of support for the national performing companies is significant, and I understand their ambition to do more and not to have to make any decisions that do not match their ambitions for the years ahead.

As I have said to them already, we are now effectively 70 per cent through delivering the additional £100 million in the culture space, and the most significant part of that 70 per cent increase has gone towards the delivery of multiyear funding through Creative Scotland. That is where this year’s £20 million increase has been focused. Were that not the case, multiyear funding could not be delivered. It is important to understand that the priority has been to ensure that that foundational intervention in Scotland’s culture sector—successfully delivered through Creative Scotland—is paid for.

That puts us in a position in which we are able to think about the remaining 30 per cent of the £100 million uplift, which is £30 million. Had I been able to deliver the £100 million uplift, which is the biggest increase in culture funding outside Covid since the onset of devolution, in one financial year, we would not be having the discussion that we are having today. Our position reflects that we have been able to increase incrementally, year on year, towards that £100 million.

I am keen to deliver an uplift in spending for our national performing companies—I have said that to them and to this committee. I have also said that I wish to explore providing multiyear funding, which I keenly support, to the national performing companies. Multiyear funding does not only deliver financial certainty; it also allows cultural organisations to get on with what they wish to deliver creatively, rather than spending their time, year on year, on annual budget rounds. It is a distraction from what they want to achieve, and it also means that they cannot open up potential new income streams. One of the exciting areas that our national performing companies are exploring is how to be imaginative and make more money. What the RSNO is doing in the film sector is a really good example.

I have made it clear to the national performing companies that we are in dialogue about how we can best support them with additional funding—we will deliver this year’s budget and then think about the allocation of the final £30 million of the £100 million uplift. We want to understand how best they can be supported as part of that.

I want to deliver additional funding to the national performing companies, and I understand that they are disappointed that that has not happened this year. I wish that I was able to deliver the £100 million increase in a single year, but that was never a realistic prospect or one that we committed to. We are delivering the £100 million increase in the timeframe that we set out, and we have already done so with the Creative Scotland multiyear funding allocation. I am very focused on ensuring that, as part of that final stage of allocation, we include the national performing companies.