Scottish Opera
I have circulated correspondence about Scottish Opera that I have received from the former Minister for Environment, Sport and Culture. I have written to Scottish Opera to ask that a copy of the business plan be made available to the committee. I hope that that will be forthcoming relatively quickly and I shall pass it round to members as soon as I receive it. The funding was subject to the business plan, so it is important that we see what it contains.
I assume that Mike Russell, who asked for the item to be on the agenda, has something to say on the matter.
Indeed. I asked for the item to be on the agenda in the hope that the committee could discuss the matter and offer its considered advice to the minister. I had thought that we could do that in the light of having looked at the documentation. The committee looked in some detail at the funding of the national companies 18 months ago. It is therefore a matter of great regret that we are faced with a fait accompli.
I must also say—and I am sure that what I say will not be happily accepted—that the answer confirms my worst fears. Frankly, it is deceitful. The second last paragraph of the minister's answer to written question S1W-14238 indicates that
"support from the Scottish Arts Council will amount to £30.634 million. The annual grant for next year, and each of the subsequent two years will be £7.473 million. The support in this year will ensure that the company enters the next three-year period in as stable a financial position as possible."
To work out support for this financial year—that is, for the next fortnight—one must take away three times £7.473 million from £30.634 million. One must also know how much the company's grant was this year. The answer is that Scottish Opera will receive £8.215 million in this year, which is an increase of £1.901 million over what it expected to receive at the start of the year.
In November 1999, Scottish Opera received emergency payments of £2.1 million. As a result, in 16 months Scottish Opera has received £4 million over and above what it budgeted for. That £4 million turns out to be two thirds of a year's budget. The answer indicates that Scottish Opera's decision to undertake the Ring cycle was a major factor in that. This committee told Scottish Opera during our inquiry that that was a foolish thing to undertake. I described that decision as
"the operatic equivalent of putting a man on the moon".—[Official Report, Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 9 November 1999; c 231.]
It could not afford to undertake that major task within its budget. We told Scottish Opera that; it knew that; but it went ahead and did it.
Scottish Opera has come back yet again to ask for more money. That is not sustainable politically because, frankly, it leads to opprobrium for arts funding in Scotland. People are offended, as are many other arts companies that now believe that Scottish Opera can spend and get funding for what it likes. That is irresponsible and wrong.
The written answer was published late on Friday, without the committee being given any notice, despite the fact that it was known to the minister that the funding of Scottish Opera was on our agenda for today's meeting. That is an insult to the committee, to the Scottish artistic community and to the Scottish taxpayer.
I believe that we should bring a minister in to answer questions on the funding of Scottish Opera, although I do not know who that minister will be. We should bring Scottish Opera back to the committee and be quite open in our questioning of the company and the ministers on this shameful written answer.
I concur with some of Mike Russell's comments. The terms of the written answer are unacceptable to many of us who have worked with other artistic organisations that recognise that they must operate with finite resources.
I dealt with organisations such as Scottish Opera previously. There is an issue to do with the overview of financial records and how those records are developed and dealt with, particularly given that Scottish Opera keeps coming back and asking for additional resources rather than trying to operate more effectively. Another issue is the respect that should be shown to the Parliament's committees. The critical point is that the minister—whoever that may be—responsible for culture and the Scottish Arts Council must come to the committee to address these issues with members of the committee.
I, too, am angry and distressed by Sam Galbraith's letter and the written answer. We have all noticed that while the answer was earmarked for publication on 30 March, it was pre-released to the press with the letter.
To use Sam Galbraith's robust language, I find the letter to be nonsense and gibberish. Given that the minister took direct action to set the funding level for Scottish Opera, it is disingenuous of him to say in the second paragraph of his letter that the £7.473 million is
"the amount that they have previously earmarked".
He continues:
"my answer takes into account the factors that I have taken into account in considering this issue".
That is just gibberish. It is not good enough to put that letter before the committee.
The reply to Des McNulty's written question gives rise to another question. It appears that additional funding has been given to Scottish Opera partly because of
"the exceptional costs imposed on the company by the ambitious project to perform the Ring Cycle over this and the next three years".
Where does that leave the funding of Scottish Opera when the Ring cycle is completed? Will there be a commensurate reduction in the company's funding? A question mark hangs over the whole financial settlement.
I went to see the beginning of the Ring cycle at the Festival Theatre during the Edinburgh International Festival and was surprised to find that my subsidised seat was cheaper than a seat for the Elton John concert or the Lionel Richie concert at Edinburgh Castle esplanade.
I believe that it is important to have a Scottish opera company, but there is much still to debate about the funding of Scottish Opera. The answers are not found in the written answer and the letter. I am seriously worried that a question mark will hang over funding Scottish Opera through the SAC if the minister is in a position to issue funding instructions without the SAC knowing anything about them. Is not it time for Scottish Opera to be funded in the same way as the National Galleries of Scotland and the National Museums of Scotland?
I broadly agree with the drift of the remarks that have been made, although I think that some of them were a wee bit emotive. However, we must take a hard look at where this latest episode takes us. Given that the committee issued a report on the funding of Scottish Opera, it is unfortunate that something was done without any reference to or explanation for the committee.
I support the idea of Scottish Opera. Recently, I attended some of its outreach events and was impressed both by the audience reaction and the quality of the company's material. However, we cannot sit by and watch extra money being given to a company when we have said already that that company must work within its budget. Something must be done to take a close look into the funding of Scottish Opera and to call a halt to the idea that it can keep going without an examination of and a debate about the company's financial structure.
Where does Scottish Ballet come into that debate, given that a merger is supposed to take place? How do these issues sit with one another? Perhaps we should re-examine the whole situation at some stage. It would be good if a minister were able to come to speak to us.
The merger has been abandoned and Scottish Opera and Scottish Ballet are operating as independent companies. Before the merger was abandoned, it attracted additional funding of almost £500,000, which was not returned. I presume that one should also count that money as additional grant.
I am pleased that there is consensus about the action that we should take. We should consider two other issues when we ask questions about the funding of Scottish Opera. The first is the principle of arm's-length funding, which is a real worry. The SAC has been instructed to do something twice—the first small increase in funding and now the larger increase. That breaches the principle of arm's-length funding. Perhaps we should seek information from the SAC about that.
Brian Monteith raised the second issue, about which it might be germane for the convener to ask the First Minister, who has responsibility for the civil service and ministers.
The written answer is headed "30 March 2001" and says:
"Suggested reply to reach Departmental Private Secretary not later than 2pm on Friday 23 March 2001"
but it was lodged publicly with the Scottish Parliament information centre early in the afternoon of 16 March 2001. I would like to ask about the circumstances in which it was brought forward from being a draft answer this Friday to being a final answer last Friday. That question is worth asking, particularly given the events of the past 24 hours.
I put on record my concern about the additional funding of Scottish Opera. I recall that when representatives of Scottish Opera attended the committee they stated that the company's artistic expression could not be limited by budgetary constraints, but members of the committee indicated that that was exactly what needed to happen to Scottish Opera. The venture that it decided to take on was, to say the least, ambitious. As Mike Russell said, it was like
"putting a man on the moon".—[Official Report, Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 9 November 1999; c 231.]
I am concerned that, given the committee's inquiry and the other funding issues in the arts throughout Scotland that were demonstrated by our inquiry into the traditional arts and how underfunded they are, Scottish Opera has been given additional money.
We all support the idea of a Scottish opera company, but it should operate within the same parameters as other arts companies rather than assume that it will receive money every time it runs into difficulties simply because no one can envisage it closing.
I will write to the First Minister and ask for an explanation of the circumstances in which the written answer was published. I will also ask him which minister should come to the committee to answer questions on the funding of Scottish Opera. I will take up with the SAC some of the issues around arm's-length funding. When I have answers to those inquiries, I will ensure that Scottish Opera is placed on the committee's agenda again, at which time we will have a fuller discussion.
Members indicated agreement.
We now move into private session.
Meeting continued in private until 17:05.