Chamber and committees

Again, I agree with Mr Brown. It is good to hear that Creative Scotland will produce those statistics, and I think that more data can be provided beyond that specific 16-year period. We need more information. What then follows is to ask why that situation is so, and to understand whether it is because the institutional memories of organisations are, unfortunately, marked by a lack of success—although that is not a reason not to support cultural organisations and venues.

In fairness to Creative Scotland, it did exactly that with a number of organisations that did not make the initial multiyear-funding round. The fact that there is experience of helping organisations and venues to get to a place at which they can apply successfully is a sign that there is a willingness to do it. I do not think that the situation is because there is no willingness to intervene and make it happen. However, Mr Brown is absolutely right to put a marker down to say that, if there is nothing or next to nothing in four local authority areas, we need to understand why, what will happen as a result and when, within a reasonable timescale, people in Clackmannanshire, West Dunbartonshire and wherever else can have confidence that local organisations or venues will be funded through those streams.

However, as I have mentioned, there are other funding streams through which organisations are supported, and one has to look across the piece at all of those. I wanted to satisfy myself on whether that had been the case in relation to Culture Collective and the creative communities programme. However, if Mr Brown were to raise that point, I would have to say to him that I am not aware that any projects in Clackmannanshire had been funded through those routes.

Having that overview points to the fact that there is no support through multiyear funding, Culture Collective or the creative communities programme. To me, that looks like the beginnings of a flashing light to ask, “why not”?

Yes. Those edits were undertaken by civil servants. I was unaware of the necessity for the edits to take place. They took place, and the numbers and the detail were restored.

Would I have wished that that was not necessary? Yes, because members such as Mr Kerr quite rightly ask why. That was done for an administrative reason, however; it is nothing to do with the allocation of resources through the other arts budget line, which totals just over £16 million.

On the question of artistic and cultural judgment, it is not the place for me, as cabinet secretary, to involve myself in the work of Creative Scotland and its responsibility around the funding of organisations. It is for Creative Scotland to make such decisions—and that is what it does.

However, the Scottish Government quite properly undertakes a range of other directly funded interventions that impact on all sorts of cultural areas. There is a balancing act. One gets advice from officials on what is required and then considers whether one feels that the balance is right to ensure that we are covering all the areas that we want to cover. Then, no doubt, there will be a view that there is too much in one area or not enough somewhere else but—

Forgive me, convener, but, with your permission, I want to answer part of Mr Kerr’s question that I did not answer. He asked about the festivals expo fund, which supports Scottish artists to showcase their work and develop international connections through Scottish festivals. Creative Scotland has distributed more than £30 million through the festivals expo fund. Since its inception in 2007, that has been to festivals in Edinburgh and, from 2018 onwards, to festivals in Glasgow.

Anything that will help the viability and sustainability of an organisation such as the Centre for Contemporary Arts should be considered, and none of the experience that there is in such an important institution should be lost. As we are talking about people’s jobs, Mr Harvie, I am sure that you would agree with me on that, and given the precarious nature of many people’s work in the freelance sector in culture and the arts, I agree that that has to be a priority.

However, given the history around governance issues and finance, if one seeks the reopening of the Centre for Contemporary Arts as a priority, one must look at all the options to ensure that it will be viable. Despite the priorities that Mr Harvie has raised with regard to the very talented people who have worked at the CCA, it is also the case that, at the end of the process, the organisation must be financially viable. I am sure that everybody at Creative Scotland who is taking this forward will be seized of that fact. I say again, as I did in my initial answer, that I would be very keen for them to explore all options, because it is in everybody’s interests that the venue reopens and that the talented people who work there are able to continue what they do. I wish to be as supportive as I can be in that endeavour.

I fear that I will have to write to Mr Harvie about the spending review period. In the external affairs budget, there are some minor changes that relate to property and lease arrangements as part of the network. That can cause in-year changes to what is required when there is a roll-over of a lease, for example, which means that one has to pay something in the first year but not the same amount in the second year. My memory is that that is one of the contributing factors to some of the changes to the external affairs budget. Mr Harvie will be aware that the Scottish Government has a very strong presence in London, and facilities in Brussels are not on platform—as it is known—because they are part of the UK embassy set-up, which is also the case in the other places where the network is located. I will write to the convener, so that Mr Harvie and the rest of the committee have some details about that.

I agree with—

I have no reason to disbelieve the concerns that colleagues in national performing companies and elsewhere have expressed, and that was the case in other parts of the culture sector in preceding years. That is why the Government has committed to the biggest increase in culture funding since the beginning of devolution and outwith Covid recovery. I want to be able to deliver resources to the national performing companies and others, and we have been doing so for the museums and galleries. For example, the museums fund, which has been introduced and very warmly welcomed by the sector, is already making a difference. Interventions are in place in some of the areas that Mr Halcro Johnston referred to.

I acknowledge—I have said this to other members of the committee—that the national performing companies look forward to an increase in their funding for reasons that I totally understand, and I am committed to helping to deliver that increase.

The review is relatively new to the desks of colleagues at Creative Scotland, as it is to me. I have already had conversations with Creative Scotland and received assurances about the approach that it will take to the review and its proposals. It will be working on it, as the Scottish Government is working on what we can do. It is not all on Creative Scotland—most of it is, but some of it is on the Scottish Government.

The question is whether I have confidence that colleagues in Creative Scotland are taking these things seriously. I take everybody at their word with regard to the assurances that I have had. They are able to embrace the opportunity that the change offers them. Now that multiyear funding is up and running, there is the exciting prospect that significant staff resource will be freed up in an organisation that has previously been geared towards an annual process.

I do not have a timeline in front of me, but it should not take much longer. The review has already concluded, so I definitely hope that I can share my views before the election—before we get into purdah. That is my personal hope. If there is any reason why that is not possible, I will let the member and the committee know. I agree that momentum is important as part of the process.

I acknowledge that there has not been a substantive increase in the funding for the national performing companies—