Official Report 288KB pdf
I welcome the witnesses to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, and I thank you for your attendance.
I am the artistic director and chief executive of Dundee Repertory Theatre. I am here as the chair of the Federation of Scottish Theatres. I apologise for our failure to provide a written submission, but we fell foul of the deadline as we felt that we needed to consult members in detail.
I am the director of the Citizens' Theatre in Glasgow. I support what Hamish said and I want to supply some information about the width, breadth and depth of theatre in Scotland. Living in one place, as we all do, it is hard to appreciate the amount and the high standard of work that is being done, examples of which would be: Tosg Gaelic Theatre Company's plays in Gaelic; Lung Ha's Theatre Company's work with people with disabilities; TAG Theatre Company's educational work; experimental work by companies such as Theatre Cryptic and Visible Fictions; new writing at the Traverse; touring productions by companies such as 7:84 Theatre Company and Borderline; and new ensemble work in Dundee. An enormous amount of splendid work is being done at all levels that could form the basis of the exciting initiative that we are discussing.
I am the director of the Independent Theatre Council, which is a UK-wide organisation with 35 members in Scotland, many of which have been mentioned today. I bring a slightly different perspective to this matter, not only because of where I am based and my gender, but because many of the companies that I represent have been missed out of discussions about a national theatre because they work in small communities, have no buildings, are touring companies or are isolated.
I am the president of the Saltire Society. I want to say how grateful I am to the committee for the opportunity to express the views of the Saltire Society on this important question. The society, along with many other organisations and individuals in Scotland, has campaigned consistently for a Scottish Parliament and for more than 60 years for a national theatre. Now that we have the Parliament, the national theatre is the only vital institution that Scotland still needs.
Thank you for inviting me before the committee today. I am an actor and director; currently, I am the chief executive of the Royal Lyceum Theatre Company. I will be straightforward and say that I have always wanted to live in a Scotland that had a national theatre. I feel that way not, as some might suspect, purely out of self-interest, but because when, as a completely aimless young man nearly 40 years ago, I discovered the Citizens' Theatre in Glasgow, it had such a profoundly beneficial effect on my life that I want to do everything in my power to ensure that the same opportunity is available to others.
I thank all our witnesses for their statements. I know that Brian Monteith wanted to kick off with some questions on the benefits of a national theatre. Brian, do you think that all your questions have been answered, or do you want to pursue this?
I am sure that I can explore the matter further.
Carry on.
Could Hamish Glen say a little more about what he thinks the artistic benefits of a national theatre may be for actors, writers and technicians? The model that he put forward was very interesting, but would it address some of Nicola Thorold's concerns through commissioning?
I am absolutely certain that the national theatre would be beneficial in all those areas. The benefits for actors, writers and technicians are reasonably clear, in that a national theatre would create the conditions for them to produce work of the highest possible quality, as the financial conditions of work would be improved. A national theatre would also provide them with a much higher-profile platform on which to show their work.
Do you have difficulty, as an artistic director, in attracting talent, be it technical or artistic, to your theatre because of pay scales and the fact that, although there are a number of centres of excellence, there is no core centre in Scotland? Are you concerned that many actors, technicians and even writers tend to be drawn down to London because that is where the work is and that is where the lights are?
Absolutely, and they tend to do very well down there. Unquestionably, there is a drain of talent away from Scotland—a national theatre could turn that round. The benefits would spill over into all the various organisations. If we were commissioned to produce a piece for the national theatre to the level that is expected of a national theatre production, all my technical staff—the carpenters, the electricians and so on—would be able to apply their expertise at a level that they would not otherwise have the opportunity to work at. That could only augment our own work.
What would be the difference between, for example, rehearsal times for a production that you put on at the Dundee Rep Theatre and a work that you were commissioned to do for the Edinburgh international festival by the national theatre?
With a national theatre, things would be transformed. Because I run Scotland's only full-time ensemble company, I have managed to increase the rehearsal periods that are available, but that is very unusual. Normally, we would be expected to take three and a half weeks, from the first time that the company sits down to read the play together to the first time that it hits the audience. Anywhere else in Europe, it would be unimaginable to produce work to the quality that is expected in such a short time; there, the rehearsal period could easily be two or three months. With a national theatre, developmental work on projects could be started considerably earlier by bringing together interested writers and directors before a decision had even been made that a particular production would form part of a national theatre season.
Thank you. Members of the committee may indicate who they would like to answer their questions, but we will try to bring other witnesses into the discussion if they make it clear that they wish to add something.
I would like to move the discussion on a bit, while remaining on the topic of the benefits of a national theatre. Kenny Ireland gave an impassioned speech about the inspiration that people can draw from theatre. I would like us to explore the educational role of a national theatre and how we can take theatre and its benefits to young people. I do not know whether this is accurate, but I was told recently that only 25 per cent of secondary schools in Scotland have a drama teacher. Do you think that one benefit of the national theatre would be to put in place a national strategy to ensure that young people had early access to theatre and its educational benefits?
I can say without fear of contradiction that almost everybody who runs a theatre company in Scotland is committed to education work. Ours is expanding all the time, but it is funded by a fairly small grant from the local authority, which, along with a lottery grant, pays the wages of only one person. Next year, the three youth theatres that we formed this year might have to stop if we cannot find matching funding for our lottery grant. In this area, we work very much hand to mouth. Like Billy Paterson, I started at the Theatre for Youth at the Citizens' Theatre, which became TAG. Many Scottish actors started off working in theatre in education. That was a wonderful thing, but it has disappeared completely. It could be brought back and, if it were funded properly, it could become a major part of a new national theatre.
Nicola, did you want to add something?
Yes. The committee may not be aware that a task force has been set up to consider young people's work in Scotland. I believe that it is proposing the establishment of seven centres throughout the country. Those would not necessarily be building based, but they would act as a focus for young people's work.
Could you say a little more about the task force?
It has no formal constitution. The Arts Council has encouraged it and is funding the development of its work.
Could you clarify to which arts council you are referring?
Do you mean the Scottish Arts Council?
Yes.
As Kenny Ireland was speaking, I was remembering the time—it must have been around 1968—that he came to Clydebank High School with his theatre in education programme. I recall vividly the kids loving being tobacco lords in Glasgow and folk walking about heaving barrels. That was a wonderful tradition, and it owes a great deal to Kenny.
There is no absolute blueprint. What I have tried to outline is a vision of how this project might go forward and how it would be supported. It would make sense to have a season of work on various scales, which would play in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee during the year. However, because some areas might not have access to that work, we need to consider ways in which we might extend its availability to audiences that would not otherwise have the opportunity to see it. The season might not be the same in all places—the national theatre might commission work specifically for audiences in the Highlands and Islands, for example, while other work played in the major urban centres.
There is a model for this. Manchester's Royal Exchange Theatre has quite a sophisticated touring theatre, which it used while bomb damage was being repaired.
A national theatre would tend to increase the reputation and the status of drama—or theatre as a whole—in Scotland; it would encourage people to take an interest and it would lead to more companies and more activity across the country.
As someone who has trod the boards in his time, I have been very interested in what the witnesses have been saying.
Ah—someone is declaring an interest.
You have talked about accessibility and involving children. It may be the case—it very possibly is the case—that we have a finite pot of money, so let me ask you the $64,000 question: how do you suggest that we rechannel funds from the existing arts cash outflow, if you like, to establish and pay for a national theatre? You may not care to answer that one, but I will press you.
Rather than straying into that now, we should, I suggest, give people a chance to think about it, because it is a question that we will come back to. We will move through the other questions, but the witnesses should be warned that we will come back to that one.
As long as we will come back to it this morning.
Yes, we will.
I am sorry—I did not catch the question.
Me neither.
Money is being spent on the arts; to establish a national theatre there may be a cost. How do you recommend that we should rechannel funds towards its establishment, if it is to be established?
I would like to move on to other issues before coming back to that.
May I ask for some clarification? Mr Stone talked about the arts budget, but may we make suggestions about how the money might be found elsewhere?
You may make lots of suggestions. [Laughter.] Cathy Peattie would like to ask about the impact that a national theatre could have on existing companies.
Hamish Glen has already answered part of my question. You said, Hamish, that you felt that local companies would benefit from having a national company, and I can see the logic in that. However, there is evidence that the Royal National Theatre in England drains resources from the smaller companies.
The crucial difference is in the model. If there is a big building in one place, which consistently offers better working conditions—for example, more exposure and higher pay—that will clearly drain talent and funding away from regional and smaller theatre companies. The model that we are proposing specifically suggests that the work that is created by the national theatre company should be built on the existing infrastructure, thus providing better value for the investment that has already been made, raising the standards and skills of all those involved and providing opportunities in all disciplines for people to pursue their work to the highest possible quality.
Nicola, are you confident that that kind of model would help your companies, or can you see a threat?
The model is certainly worth exploring. As I said, we need a creative and contemporary way of raising the whole issue of theatre and its audience. That needs to be an element of a bigger strategy, however. When we talk about reaching audiences in Scotland, this is only one of the issues; others would have to be considered.
Exactly.
Hamish, you mentioned—several times—standards, skills and training. I am interested in the training, development and support of young actors, and you spoke about a forum to look at what is happening to theatre companies. It worries me that, when lottery money becomes available, expectations are raised and young folk gain skills and confidence but there is nowhere for them to go.
There is a well-understood European model in which an organisation—a national theatre or one of the big ensembles, such as the Maly group—has a direct and on-going relationship with the training organisations. In that way, the training does not exist in isolation; there is a dynamic interchange between training and professional practice. Actors emerge much better equipped for their professional lives and a mutually beneficial dynamic is created between the theatre company and the emerging talent.
That model is specifically designed not to drain the talent from companies. The health of the national theatre would be dependent on the health of those companies.
The whole point of this proposal is that it is the exact opposite of a drain because it injects more money to help existing companies, both to do more work at a higher level and to tour more. The drain that unquestionably exists in England would not happen here.
Our recent experience in New York with "Life is a Dream" is that it was very advantageous to Scotland and to Scottish business people.
I would like to ask Hamish Glen and Nicola Thorold whether they are against having a national theatre company along the lines of the Royal National Theatre in England?
Yes.
You are? Do you think that it would be a bad idea for Scotland? Ignoring its location on the south bank and considering only the idea of having such a national company, are you against it?
Yes.
What structure would you put in place? Would there be a board? Your idea sounds as though it might be along the lines of the Scottish Arts Council—a body at arm's length from the Government, whose purpose is to distribute Government funds to commission new work. That is not the function of the Scottish Arts Council—although, frankly, it could be, if we wanted that, although I am not suggesting that it should be.
There are major distinctions. The Edinburgh festival is a model of an independent body with a remit to commission work and to put together artists and companies, whether from here or abroad. By definition, it involves a vision of how to create world-class theatre for the Scottish people. The Arts Council has a different remit—to distribute funds to various arts activities throughout Scotland. Increasingly, those funds have to be competitively bid for—which, crucially, is different from what we are proposing.
I know that we will be moving on to funding—everything raises the question of funding—but I want to understand what this body would physically be like. Are you proposing something along the lines of the Scottish Chamber Orchestra?
In what sense?
I am thinking of a body that does not have a theatre or a building, but has an administration.
The Edinburgh International Festival would be—
Is that the model that you want to stick with?
The reason I say that is that the SCO has full-time players.
As we heard last week, orchestra members are represented on the board of the SCO, which struck me as being a very good idea. You are saying that you will not replace the existing theatre companies. Are you suggesting that they—people such as yourself, for example—should have a role in the national company?
Yes. It would make sense to have the active involvement of representatives of the infrastructure that is expected to make the work for the national theatre.
A nice consensus is developing about the model. I would like to ask Paul Scott a question. You said—and I know that you will remember this:
Yes—a base or bases. The idea of a co-operative organisation that involves several theatres and produces work that is presented on several different stages is a good model to begin the movement to launch the national theatre. When the productions appear, all those different places would be the theatre in which the national theatre was happening.
It could be, but not necessarily—it could be based at the equivalent of the Hub.
From what Hamish Glen said, I assumed that the Scottish national theatre could be in a back hall in Stornoway, in the Gaiety Theatre in Ayr, or wherever the company was performing. I want to be clear about this, because it is a question that Brian Monteith raised when we first considered the issue some weeks ago. I have reservations about the notion that our national theatre should simply be a building. I would like to know whether there is consensus on that, or whether the directors are reduced to an embarrassed silence.
There is certainly consensus. To avoid being reduced to an embarrassed silence, I must stress that the matter will have to be taken on to the next stage and those discussions cannot take place at this committee meeting.
I was not trying to do that. I simply wanted to address the point about a permanent base that Paul Scott had written about in his article. I wanted to be clear that we are not talking about a permanent base or building.
There is a distinction between a base, from which the organisation functions and where the various departments that Hamish Glen described meet, talk and do their work, and the stages where the productions are put on. There must be one heart, one centre, where the organisation and planning can go on, but all the stages in Scotland could be available for productions. That is how I understand the situation.
When the Federation of Scottish Theatres discussed this issue, we did not go into how it would work. It is certainly true, as Kenny Ireland has suggested, that it could be grafted on to an existing theatre. It could be an independent organisation, comprising a board and a director, although that is not a policy that my chairman, Professor McDonald, would adopt. However, there are organisations to which the national theatre could be attached, such as the federation, the Scottish Arts Council or the Parliament.
Thank you. I know that Brian Monteith wants to ask another question, but we have to move on because time is against us. We still have to address the issue of finance, which Jamie Stone raised. Nicola Sturgeon also has some questions about that.
I have a couple of questions that I would like all the witnesses to consider. Kenny Ireland said that there is an assumption that a national theatre would be well funded. This may be a difficult question to answer, but do you have a view on what level of funding would be required to establish and maintain a national theatre along the structural lines that Hamish Glen described?
I think that funding must come directly from Government; it cannot come through the Scottish Arts Council. The reasoning behind that opinion is that the Scottish Arts Council should have a brief to introduce as much new work as possible and to spread out the money that is spent on the arts as broadly as possible, in geographical and artistic terms. The national theatre's brief, on the other hand, has to be to pursue excellence, which represents a slight contradiction to the SAC's brief.
I agree with Kenneth that funding should come directly from the Government. I think that that should apply to all the national companies. National arts companies should be treated in the same way as other national cultural institutions, such as the National Library of Scotland, the museums and the galleries, which are the direct responsibility of Government.
I cannot comment on how much a national theatre might cost; different elements of it would cost different amounts. I feel that such a body should be funded at arm's length from the Government. I do not agree with Paul that a national organisation is already by its nature excluded from political shenanigans or influence. It is clear from the arrangements in England and Wales that politicians get very interested in national companies, and I would want to protect national companies from that.
To answer Nicola Sturgeon's first question, one could arrive at the amount that one wanted to spend in two ways. One could say, "The new Scottish Parliament has this much money to spend on a national theatre. What can you do for that?" Alternatively, one could say, "We want an experimental wing, an educational wing and a big-scale wing to start with. How much would that cost and can somebody draw up a budget?" One could arrive at a funding arrangement in either way.
It was decided that, as the chair of the Federation of Scottish Theatres, I would not mention how much a national theatre would cost. However, I was also told that I would be allowed to speak as an individual, so I will. If one really wanted to pull off a national theatre of the range and scale that I have outlined, one would need around £3 million.
Nicola Sturgeon, did that answer your questions?
I would like to ask Nicola Thorold another question arising from her comment that there should be arm's-length funding. Would you be happy for funding to be distributed via the Scottish Arts Council, or do you think that another body should be set up?
I shall sidestep that question by saying that I think that funding for the national theatre should be consistent with what is decided for the other national companies.
Why should national companies be treated differently from the network of theatres in Scotland? What gives national companies the divine right to direct or some other form of funding, sidestepping the Scottish Arts Council? The comments that I have heard seem to damn the Scottish Arts Council with faint praise.
I am tempted to say that you might think that we could not possibly comment. [Laughter.]
Nevertheless, I am here to ask a sharp question.
To answer your sharp question, no divine right is involved; an absolute practicality is involved.
Let us get to the nub of the matter. You are saying that your funding would be more secure—less susceptible to the whim of another body—if it were in the hands of the Parliament?
The Scottish Arts Council shifts the goalposts almost weekly. We have meeting after meeting at which the criteria are changed. You have to decide whether you want a national theatre and what you want: give us the brief directly and we can produce it. To say that the Scottish Arts Council is not politically motivated in some way is nonsense.
I support putting more money into the arts. In response to Jamie Stone's question about redistributing money within the arts budget, you implied that that should not happen and suggested that there were options. You will appreciate that there would have to be if the Scottish Executive wanted to put more money into the arts. Can you suggest where other—not new—money might come from?
No. I agree completely with Giles Havergal that we would not be interested in carving up the cake in a different way. As I said, everybody is only just surviving, and there is no way that the cake can be carved up more.
I understand that the impact on the invisible economy would be huge, but the additional money for the arts will have to come from the budgets for local authorities, local development, tourism, or whatever. You have to appreciate that if the money does not come from within the arts budget, there will be an impact on other budgets.
If it is accepted that there are social, economic and tourism benefits, perhaps various sets of budgets could contribute to a pool of money that could be invested in a national theatre that would be a resource for those various areas.
I suspect that whether the national theatre and the other national companies are funded directly by the Government is not what we are meant to discuss here. The answer will emerge from how the Parliament wants to fund the arts. You may want to use the Scottish Arts Council or another arm's-length group, or to do it in-house. I agree that nobody has a divine right to have special funding in a special way, but the national companies' funding is part of the wider question of how the new Parliament wants to fund the arts. Does it want to adopt the English model, or do something completely different?
You are right that, ultimately, the Parliament will take that decision. As your organisations have been funded in one way or another, we are interested in your ideas for progress, either for the national theatre or for the national companies more generally. I am surprised that you think that direct funding by the Scottish Executive would be less political—perhaps I have a different view about how politicians think about these matters.
Giles Havergal's submission says clearly that
No.
I am sorry; that is not from that submission.
Please be brief.
I will try to be brief. It is a long story so I will not go into great detail.
I would like to defend the Arts Council. It is not that it could not face the idea of a national theatre; it was aware that the theatre community was not in favour of a building-based national theatre and could not afford it. That explanation should be entered on the record.
I was one of the people who presented this model to the FST, with the idea that the Scottish Arts Council could not carry it forward. It was rightly feared that the juggernaut would get out of control and that it would become a drain on the other companies. The Scottish Arts Council has not considered this model at all. Maybe it will change its mind once it has.
You will be aware that we will meet witnesses from the Scottish Arts Council after this discussion. I am sure that members will wish to pursue that issue with them.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Good morning to the representatives of the Scottish Arts Council. I believe that Bill English has some comments to make at the beginning.
First, I apologise for the fact that our chairman, Magnus Linklater, cannot be present. I am a member of council. The good news is that we have the same team of experts as we had at the committee before. I am sure that they will be able to help the committee.
I will explain how we will handle this morning's session. We will start with David Taylor, who will introduce the subject of the national theatre from the SAC's perspective. We will then give members of the committee the opportunity to ask questions. We have allocated 30 to 45 minutes for that. We will then move on to the SAC's general submission and points that have arisen over the previous three weeks. Tessa Jackson, and probably David Taylor, will come back in on that.
I am the director of drama and dance at the Scottish Arts Council. As I said in the paper on this subject that we submitted to the committee, there have been two studies on this in recent years. One was completed in 1994 and the second was completed in 1996 but considered by the council in 1997. Paul Scott is correct to point out that error.
Thank you. I will ask Ian Jenkins to open the questions.
I do not think that people are criticising the Arts Council's work in drama across the country, nurturing different types of theatre. It seems that, in dealings with the Saltire Society and others, the SAC has been reluctant to embrace the idea of a national theatre. Magnus Linklater was quoted at one stage as saying that the SAC did not want another millstone round its neck.
Any reluctance would be coloured by the fear that a national theatre would threaten what already exists. One must be honest about that. If that fear can be removed, we are talking about a different ball game. There is also a fear of institutionalisation. The arts flourish where there is energy, excitement and ambition; institutions can sometimes suppress that. One would always want the wild cards to get their chance to be played, and to allow a throughput of young talent. That is not to say that a national institution would preclude that, but one must ensure that those opportunities exist.
I add to that that we would insist on three criteria: there would be adequate additional funding for the arts; the theatre would impact across Scotland, not just Edinburgh and Glasgow; the scheme would not be detrimental to the existing structure. If those criteria were satisfied, we would be delighted to pursue the scheme.
I accept that. However, can you understand that there is a feeling that the idea of a national theatre, as we heard this morning, would create opportunities to focus? People would support the idea with funds and the national theatre would become an ambassador. However well they do things, Dundee Repertory Theatre and the Citizens' Theatre, for example, do not have that sort of status. If you can say to us that the other national companies have that status, why should a national theatre not have it too? What about the extra energy that would come from that sort of status?
If you can persuade the Parliament to provide the money for that, we would be alongside you.
So it is only the money? There is no reluctance in institutions—
I mentioned three criteria. Money is one of them.
But your paper says that people in the theatre think that this issue is not a high priority. In your big meeting of two or three years ago, it was away down low on the list. However, that is predicated on the fact that people did not think that there was going to be more money.
That paper reports what we found; it does not represent our point of view.
I am not saying that.
I wish to go through a number of points from your submission. I am not sure who wants to answer these points. Any of the witnesses should feel free to answer.
I agree with that.
Paragraph 2.2 says:
Yes.
Moving on to point 6, the funding for the initiative is some £2.5 million over three years, which is equivalent to £750,000 a year. Once the current funding commitments have been fulfilled, would it be possible that £750,000—if that remained the allocation—might be available to broaden this initiative into the model that we have heard about? Alternatively, do you believe that the £750,000 a year would have to remain in the current initiative's strategy?
A number of initiatives are likely to be on-going. One of the difficulties is that we do not know if that money will be available after three years.
So, in a sense, you have to argue the case with the Scottish Executive for that funding when it runs out?
Yes. Our funding has been set for three years.
Can I take you back to your paper and to paragraph 5, "Developments since 1996"? The drama department held a conference at the Tramway for about 200 practitioners, which is quite an impressive number. You asked them to rank their priorities. I am interested to see that the sixth priority was:
It is possible, but I do not think that it can be inferred from the meeting. Children and young people were far and away the most important issue that people identified.
Since that event took place, have you, as the drama department, taken cognisance of the survey by increasing funding to children's and young people's theatre?
Yes, we have made specific provision for children and young people. We have set the target of ensuring that 20 per cent of the money from our flexible schemes is invested in that area. In the previous spending round, more than 30 per cent went to children's and young people's theatre. We are also funding the task force's research.
Before you took up your current post, David, you worked for one of the theatres in Scotland, so you have a good deal of experience to call on. The thing that may have surprised some people here today—it certainly surprised me—is the degree of unanimity that exists between theatres that compete regularly. Has one of the problems—not just for people such as Paul Scott who favour a national theatre, but for the Arts Council—been that it could not find any consensus among the theatre companies?
That is true, There has not been a clear consensus. It is to be welcomed that the organisations represented here today have spoken more or less with one voice. One of the key elements that they have identified is that the national theatre should be independent. They have not specified what it should be independent of, but I suspect that they mean independent of any particular theatre organisation. The proposal has a greater chance of success if that remains the case.
The Edinburgh International Festival is funded by the Scottish Arts Council to the tune of almost £800,000.
There is something else that you did not know about me. You know about my interest in the Highland festival, but my kid brother makes Highland cheese. You can draw what conclusions you like from that.
How many children does he have?
You do not have to answer that. Carry on.
I am the one asking the questions.
One of the points that was made this morning was that there had to be a body to organise the concept of a national theatre, and the Edinburgh International Festival model has just been mentioned. We do not say that there should not be such a body. The question is whether that body should be financed in the same way as the festival and the national companies currently are, or directly by the Parliament.
The Scottish Arts Council existed under another style of government. Now that we are in a new age, do you see a different relationship, one in which the SAC works in conjunction with the committee, the Scottish Executive and the Parliament?
I was hoping to get a chance at some stage to suggest that once a year, the SAC could come to the committee, say what we have been doing, outline current issues and exchange views—not in the atmosphere of a particular problem or crisis—in a positive dialogue. That sort of thing could not have been achieved under the previous political structure. That is one of the great advantages of the new structure, and I hope that you agree to my suggestion. We could schedule a formal meeting every year, so that it would not just be when there was a problem.
There is feeling in the committee that we would like to build a closer relationship with the Scottish Arts Council. While not necessarily taking up that suggestion at the moment, we could discuss it at a future date.
I have a quick question along the same lines as that of Jamie Stone. What was your reaction to the fact that everyone who spoke to us this morning was in favour of a national theatre? Everyone agreed with the idea of a commissioning national theatre, rather than a building-based one. Your paper is rather neutral, but the evidence that we heard this morning suggested that the SAC is hostile to the idea.
We are not hostile to that idea. I explained our three criteria and what was outlined this morning could meet those criteria.
You explained that. However, the argument in your paper suggests that there is no will, need or desire for a national theatre, yet everyone who spoke this morning testified to all those things. Your paper does not seem to reflect that.
Our paper reflects what we found when we consulted the constituency in the past. If there is a new upsurge of interest in the matter, that is great. However, we would still say that there are three criteria to be met before we will profess that. I suspect that there has not been such an upsurge in the constituency previously because most of us assumed that there would not be extra money. Now that we know you have access to money that no one else did—
We must put it on record that, at this stage, no one is suggesting that there is additional money. We are saying that we must consider the provision, should there not be additional money, and listen to suggestions about how to obtain additional funding.
I want to return to your paper. In paragraph 7.1, you say
Those comments could be seen as negative in relation to a new theatre building or a new theatre company. They are not at all negative in relation to what was discussed this morning. This morning, the discussion was about finding resources to move existing organisations up a few notches, as and when appropriate. We do not think that there should be a large infrastructure replicated in order to support the national theatre. The idea that was discussed this morning could be very light on its feet, with a small staff that would use the resources of the existing theatre companies and buildings to realise this dream. There is no contradiction between our paper and what was discussed this morning.
The mood music is not right.
To continue the work of this reconciliation commission, perhaps you can lay to rest or rebut a comment that Paul Scott made in his article in The Herald. He said that the Scottish Arts Council
I do not know what evidence there is for that claim, but what we have said this morning surely gives the lie to it.
If people say that there is to be a national theatre and that the money for it is to come from the rest of the arts sector, we are hostile to that idea.
As Ian Welsh says, we seem to be engaged in reconciliation. You heard about the model that was proposed this morning along the lines of the Scottish theatre initiative, to which your paper seems initially to be hostile. You now appear to be telling us that you are quite supportive of that model, but that your support is predicated on funding. If funding were available, what do you think would be the role of the Scottish Arts Council? Would you have a strategic role, or would you want a light-on-its-feet administration to decide the strategy?
There is a strong argument for the relationship being the same as for other organisations such as the Edinburgh International Festival, which has already been mentioned a number of times. We fund that and invest in that organisation's vision of artistic leadership. We monitor the use of that funding as we do for other theatre organisations.
Would you expect the Scottish Arts Council to have a monitoring role rather than, as some people from the other national companies have described it, an interfering role?
I do not accept that we play an interfering role, but we would have a monitoring role.
Paul Scott said this morning that you would argue for a fund rather than for a company. His argument is that only a company can develop and initiate policy, and he suggested that your idea of a national theatre is completely different from what our first set of witnesses have argued for.
Over time, different models or quasi-models, some of them not very well developed, have been discussed. The system for funding and resourcing must be defined quite precisely and there is a lot of work to be done on that, but the initiative as it has been described so far sounds to me as if it could reap benefits.
You are suggesting that there should be an administrative body to disburse money to companies under various schemes. Paul Scott's approach is exactly the opposite: that a national company should take charge of policy in promoting Scottish theatre. That is quite different.
When we begin to discuss details, different views emerge. Most people seem to favour a commissioning or producing body. The role of a producer involves much more than just funding; it involves identifying strong artistic people, bringing them together in a shared vision and providing them with the wherewithal to carry out their aims. I absolutely accept that that is beyond the role of a funding body. We would not welcome a mini funding body, which would be a group deciding who to fund this year. That would not be a step forward, because it would only replicate SAC structures, in which a group of theatre practitioners agree where funding should go and develop strategy.
That is exactly the point on which we were pushing other witnesses this morning, and they were quite clear that the work would not replicate the work of the SAC. Your first answer this morning implied that you would use existing companies and notch them up a couple of steps, which does not fit with my interpretation of what has been said this morning.
An example of the model that we have been talking about is "Life is a Dream", which was produced by the Royal Lyceum with investment and artistic input from the Edinburgh International Festival. However, we have not had a lot of time to discuss the matter in detail. Our paper was written without the benefit of the latest view of the Federation of Scottish Theatres.
That is a fair point. Obviously, although you were in attendance this morning, the matter needs further discussion between yourselves and others.
Presumably these proposals were not dreamed up last night by the earlier witnesses and are part of a continuing discussion in the theatre world in Scotland. Is not the SAC involved in those discussions?
There has not been much discussion on this issue in the theatre world over the previous 18 months or two years. As I said in our paper, the matter has not been raised with us in formal meetings. Perhaps people were waiting until the Parliament was in existence to bring the matter up. There now seems to be a new frame of mind around. The proposal is not completely new and develops previous ideas that were discussed in earlier reports.
Although I am aware that we need to move on, do any members have any further questions on the national theatre?
I have a quick question. Does the level of funding sound right to you?
How long is a piece of string? It depends on what we want the funding to do, but it certainly needs to be upwards of £1 million. It is very difficult to say off the top of my head whether the level of funding is right.
Obviously, the discussions on the national theatre proposals will form part of the committee's final submission. I expect that, having raised the issues further this morning, you will have on-going discussions with other interested bodies about how to progress the matter.
Much of the evidence has contained general criticism of the SAC. On the one hand, it is said that we monitor and interfere far too much and do not allow boards to run their companies. On the other hand, one would not have said that funders should be able to count the pots of paint used on scenery. There has to be a careful balance between monitoring an accountable limited company, as all of these organisations are, and interfering with directors' responsibilities and eroding such accountability. Although I accept that it is our duty to find the right balance for each set of circumstances, it is a balancing act.
Some of your questions may address some statements and allegations that have come up over the past week or so, including some from as recently as yesterday and the press this morning. One or two clear comments from the SAC might be helpful.
A number of questions arise, both from what you have said and from the written submission.
I would like you to address a number of points. You were described last week by, I think, representatives of some of the unions, as being a secretive organisation, and I wonder whether you want to comment on that.
There are a number of questions there. I will ask Graham Berry, our finance director, who has been head of finance at the Scottish Arts Council for 10 years, to answer the particular point on how we go about deciding the funding for the national companies.
I will give an outline of the process, and leave it to Nod Knowles, the music director, to talk specifically on how the individual committees look at it.
The standard way of working was to have an annual cycle for most regularly funded companies; until last summer, there was only an annual cycle. As you will know, we are currently on a three-year funding cycle, which was allocated by the Scottish Office so that we would know what money was available to the Scottish Arts Council over three years. We try to pass on the benefits and security of that three-year time scale to regularly funded organisations.
I think that we had provided a copy of the letter.
Yes, but I would just like to say that we did not simply deny the RSNO the money. The letter does not say that and our plans and budget do not say that. We withheld it until we had examined more closely their plans to get on to the track that would keep them and us to the conditions under which we thought we were operating.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am less concerned about hearing why the RSNO did not get index-linked funding as I am about why Scottish Opera did, if you were applying consistent criteria across the national companies. You say that the RSNO did not fulfil those criteria and had financial difficulties. Fair enough—I accept that part of your answer—but surely if those criteria were being applied across the board, Scottish Opera would not have had a chance of getting the funding.
One of the results from the various national companies working parties was that the Scottish Office found an additional £2.4 million, which was not equally spread on an agreed basis among the four companies.
What you have just said raises the suspicion in my mind that your monitoring procedures are extremely hit or miss. That is something that may need to be looked at. Do you accept that there is a perception, at the very least, that you insist that RSNO and two of the other national companies meet stringent financial criteria and set their priorities according to their funding—we heard from RSNO last week about how it has cut back on its activities, especially overseas—while allowing Scottish Opera to spend what it likes to meet its artistic priorities and worry about the costs later? A number of people from whom we have taken evidence seem to perceive the situation in that way.
I would not accept that. We receive exactly the same sort of information from each of the national companies and each of the companies that we support. We ask them to submit budgets, annual accounts, monthly accounts and cash flows. In the case of the national companies, professional staff are engaged in preparing those documents and, like the companies' boards, we accept them. We do not have sufficient resources to interrogate the documents in great depth to establish whether they are incorrect. We receive them in the belief that they are accurate and clear.
Graham Berry does himself an injustice when he says that he does not interrogate the submissions in depth. He and other directors give very close attention to the papers that the national companies submit. Currently, we have very accurate figures for where the RSNO stands in the year's accounts and we are discussing the situation with it. Throughout the period leading up to the merger, we discussed with Scottish Opera the figures that it was presenting. However, we were not able to challenge some of the intricate detail of the figures because, as Graham said, we cannot explore that to the extent that the company's accounts department can.
Could it not be argued that the figures that have been presented to you are, to some extent, meaningless, if after having gone through that process one can still end up in the situation that Scottish Opera got itself into?
Scottish Opera's figures have been consistently good and well presented, if we leave aside the difficulty that we are now discussing. Having trailed the figures that were presented by Scottish Opera's professionals over several years, we have not found them to be wildly adrift, at least not during the time that I have been involved. We have been able to check Scottish Opera's figures carefully.
How does that square with the fact that you were ignorant of the position of Scottish Opera until the very last minute?
When we were last here, we covered in detail exactly what we knew and when. There was a deficit that was budgeted for. The figures were known to us at the points that our diaries suggest. We did not know the full extent of the situation until we had agreed figures with Scottish Opera. Those figures were not the ones that we had agreed were the best that a company should be operating under. The company was moving towards a merged form of operation with a view that the financial situation would be better next year or the year after. The new information was put to us late in the day, as indicated in the diary.
You may be aware that Sandy Orr delivered a robust and persuasive statement that confirms your view. The difficulty with deficit budgeting is that, if a company has financial problems during the year, any problematic situation is exacerbated.
The effect of the "Macbeth" production is significant, but it is not the only factor. Scottish Opera felt that, because the majority of the production's performances would take place in the following financial year, the costs could be held over until that financial year. Because the costs overran a little and because the co-production income that it was expecting did not materialise—and will not do so in the current financial year—it decided, on the advice of the interim chief executive, that it would be financially more prudent to assume the full costs of "Macbeth" within the financial year in which the production was made and the first performances given. That was a much more prudent method of accounting, although it had a detrimental effect on the accounts for that year.
To be fair, I should mention that Sandy Orr says that it now appears that there is little or no overspend on "Macbeth".
I am not sure what the question is. There are different styles of accounts. When it comes to monitoring an organisation's progress against budget, there are monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly management accounts. In my view, those should account for all the activity that is taking place in the financial year. In the preparation of statutory annual accounts, different accounting principles come into play. It is quite proper to carry forward the expenses of a production that will be used at the beginning of the next financial year. However, I do not think that it would be prudent to capitalise the cost of productions and write them off over a 10-year period or whatever—that would be imprudent in the circumstances faced by arts organisations. Such things should be included in the management accounts.
Your explanation of the monitoring system—that you treat the national companies equally—suggests that the other national companies could, perhaps with a history of failing to deal with their financial difficulties, get into the same difficulties of being 48 hours away from closure. If the monitoring systems for Scottish Opera are the same as for the RSNO, the suggestion is that the same problem could occur.
The monitoring system that we apply is the same for every company—we receive the same type of information from them all. There is an equal risk that the other companies might suddenly find themselves in a financial crisis if their financial information was in any way inaccurate or did not take account of the full year's activities. In past years, such matters have emerged in other national companies. The way in which we deal with that is to look for the indicators—the easiest indicator is the cash flow. Several times during the financial year, I pointed out that Scottish Opera's cash-flow forecasts seemed to be inaccurate. Each time, it came back with a revised version that still indicated that it could work through the problem by the end of the year—whatever cash-flow difficulties it had appeared to be short term. The same would apply to other companies. We are not in a position to interrogate and investigate in depth every financial statement that we receive.
Can we try to keep questions short?
I raised the question of culture because it was clear from the presentations from all the national companies that there was some disparity in their approaches to artistic commitments once they were aware of financial difficulties. All the companies except Scottish Opera began to review their artistic commitments in those circumstances. In some cases, they had to postpone or withdraw completely some of their commitments.
We certainly urged Scottish Opera to appoint a finance director; the absence of one was a serious gap. To be honest, I am not sure why it was difficult to make an appointment. You would have to ask Scottish Opera.
Having read all the papers and having sat through this meeting and studied the Official Report of the previous one, it strikes me that a similar situation could yet arise in any of the national companies. What is the Scottish Arts Council doing to prevent that? An infinite amount of money is not available, but no Government, Parliament or committee would tell a company such as Scottish Opera, "Sorry, but there's no more money." The national companies can take the risk of running £2 million over budget because they know that we will bail them out.
Scottish Opera did not know the financial situation that it was in, and we had no means of knowing about it. We rely on the board of that major limited company to—
That was not my question. You know what happened; what are you going to do to prevent it from happening again?
As I said, we try to maintain a balance, monitoring but not interfering. We rely on information, but we also learn from experience and we will learn from that one. We will have to examine the track record of companies that give us information; some companies may have to be monitored and interrogated in a different way.
I am concerned that, every year, this Parliament may have to spend more than £2 million that could be spent on education or health on companies that have run up a deficit. What will the SAC, the body with overarching responsibility for those companies, do to ensure that that does not happen?
Separately from the events of the past few months, our monitoring process was already under review; it continues to be reviewed. There is also what is known as the three-month report, which examines the lessons that have been learned, how the circumstances that we have been discussing came about and how we can go forward from there. There may have to be closer monitoring at some stages, or there may have to be an internal auditing procedure. The remit of that report is being drawn up by the Scottish Executive and we are happy to work towards completing that as quickly as possible so that the way in which we work in future will be clear to all parties.
The committee would like to see that report as soon as it is drawn up and revisit the matter.
Brian Monteith wanted to move away from the question of finance to talk about the merger.
It seems that the minister, the Scottish Arts Council, or perhaps both, are in a hole and are still digging. The first paragraph of the letter from Magnus Linklater to Sandy Orr, which was copied to Sam Galbraith, states:
It has been put to the committee that only the Scottish Arts Council is still in favour of the merger. Can you comment on that, too?
As for the minister's involvement, I must emphasise the fact that the Government provided the extra money specifically for the merger. It was not given to the Scottish Arts Council to decide what to do about it; it was conduited through the council, but the Government decided what was to happen to it. On that occasion, we were implementing a Government policy rather than making decisions of our own.
Our arm's-length status was mentioned. Funding decisions come through the Parliament and the minister, and how the money is allocated is obviously of ministerial interest. However, we are clearly at arm's length in terms of how money is disbursed through the arts council to the many organisations by various committees. We set out policy objectives, which are published, and we work towards them. We examine those policy objectives annually, determine whether there are any new interests, such as the national theatre, and respond accordingly.
But the minister was involved yet again when additional funding was needed to bail out Scottish Opera.
That is true. As we said before, we went to the Scottish Executive because, as the problem arose late in—or at least halfway through—the financial year, we did not have the funding to deal with it. Where else could we go but to the Scottish Executive?
I am sorry but I will have to wind up this part of the meeting as other agenda items are outstanding. There are a number of issues on which we would have liked to question you, particularly on funding for education and your relationship with the trade unions, although you started to deal with that matter in your paper. However, we will put additional questions to you in writing so that you can address them more fully, if that would be acceptable.