Official Report 242KB pdf
Good morning. I open the 11th meeting in 2008 of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. Our first item is our continued consideration of the Creative Scotland Bill at stage 1.
If I may, I will shoot first on that. There are substantial differences between this bill and the previous one. Also, major features of the earlier consultation, such as economics not playing the prime role in the definition of benefits, seem to have been ignored in this phase. As became apparent during last week's committee proceedings, the transition process, which seems to be rewriting things, is totally impervious to any consultation. It would not be accurate to say that those who work at the front line of the sector feel that they have been thoroughly consulted.
You will have to forgive me, but I was not around for the original consultation. I am aware of the outcomes and the paperwork that went with it, but it is difficult for me to compare what happened now with what went before.
A huge and significant point, which the committee has already picked up on, is the interaction between what will be called creative Scotland and Scottish Enterprise. I think that I am right in saying that, in the draft culture (Scotland) bill, the section on that was left blank with a "To be filled in later" comment posted underneath it. We have moved from that position straight to the bill that is before us. There is a complete lack of clarity about the interaction between creative Scotland and Scottish Enterprise. Huge changes are happening at Scottish Enterprise. It has identified digital markets as one of its core areas of activity, but the Government's economic strategy identifies the creative industries as a key sector. Those are not a perfect match.
Committee members will pursue some of the issues that you have flagged up during the course of the morning, but I do not want to stray into their lines of questioning quite yet. I will stick to questions on the consultation process. What would the Government need to do to improve the process and to allow you, as important stakeholders, to feel that you are being consulted and listened to?
Some kind of practical road map needs to be drawn up. At the moment, the whole thing is on the level of policy debate. In fact, the bill reads like a set of compressed policy papers that have been shoved together. There is no real practical idea of the delivery mechanisms or of the structures of the new organisation and how it will relate. All the discussion seems to be about how the new organisation will relate to all the other quangos and their remits; what about all the people who are doing the work on the ground up and down the country? When will they be consulted and get the chance to discuss the shape of the organisation and how it relates and delivers? There is a need for a practical road map, which is not necessarily part of the bill, but which allows people to make positive contributions. At the end of the day, the success or failure of the organisation will depend on those who deliver on the front line, so surely they should have some kind of input on the shape of the organisation. They are the people who have worked with the previous body for many years.
I would like to pursue a more philosophical line. What I read in the papers leads me to believe that there is a problem with definitions. The Government has shied away from defining terms such as "arts", "culture" and "creativity" because it is too difficult and it might dampen some of the creative industries' enthusiasm if the definition was made too rigid. From a couple of your submissions, I note that you feel that, because the Government has not defined those terms, the bill is too vague. Do you think that there is any point in the bill in the first place? Are there any definitions of "arts", "culture" and "creativity" that would be useful and helpful to us when we are discussing any legislation, whether it is this bill or another one, or is that a non-starter?
I know the difficulty in defining the area. EventScotland breaks events into sport and culture, but I have informally renamed them "sport" and "non-sport" because it is terribly difficult to cover all the things that people think should fit into a definition of "culture" or "the arts" that everyone understands. It is a task.
It is possible to define the terms. The arts are at the core of it, and for centuries, they have been understood to be music, literature, drama and the visual arts, with the addition of film and the new media. A definition that relates to the practical activities would be hugely helpful. Otherwise, how can the remit be the basis for prioritisation, accountability or even comprehensibility among the general public about what the organisation is supposed to be about? People understand what the arts' main activities are. Of course, we are going to be considering their economic, cultural and social benefits—that is absolutely right and we want those to be included—but surely the arts and their all-round benefits are at the core of the proposals.
Is it a fundamental mistake on the Government's part not to have a definition in the bill?
I am not going to wave a flag for some abstract cause. The practical point is that if we do not begin with a workable definition, all the rest becomes difficult. Prioritisation, relating the budget to the remit and accountability for delivery of the remit all become more difficult. Where is accountability going to come from if we do not begin with some kind of practical definition?
If we can work out a practical and acceptable definition to underpin the bill, will the rest of the process fall into place, or are there other fundamental flaws in the bill?
A definition would be a huge help, because the bill would begin at first principles and people would begin to understand what we are talking about. As I say, a definition would not be constraining; instead, it would be hugely clarifying for everybody. I do not see a problem with that.
Some people are wondering whether we need the bill in any case, as some of the aims and objectives could be achieved without parliamentary legislation. Am I correct in saying that you would like legislation, as long as it has a justifiable definition embedded in it?
The bill process has already proved its worth, because the committee has done an effective job in bringing all the issues to the surface. Previously, many of us had been frustrated by the lack of an open discussion about what was going on. It would be a huge shame if, after nine years of discussion and debate on the issue, there was no direct link between our country's cultural life and its democracy through legislation. However, if we are to have legislation, it must be functional and have a purpose. The bill at present seems to be creating more confusion than purpose.
Last week, when Dr Holloway was asked about the need for a definition, he said:
Dr Holloway is a fine man and I admire many things that he does. He is trying to move on to the practical phase of running the body that will be called creative Scotland. However, it will be a poor premise to start with if he has not defined his territory. If he does not know where his territory ends, at some point, we will run into grief. I endorse entirely Donald Smith's remarks about definition and clarity of purpose. There is a lack of clarity about the use of words such as "creative" and "culture". For me, sport is an important part of our culture.
It is wrong to say that the matter is theology. I am not sure whether the comment was supposed to be denigratory about theology, but I will not get diverted into that. It is eminently practical to have definitions, because they are the basis of the remit. How can that be abstract and irrelevant? It seems to me that it is critical.
For the new organisation to perform, it needs defined boundaries around what it exists to do, so that it can perform and report against those boundaries and not get diverted off endlessly into many other areas. I am sure that requests would come in.
In the consultation, 87 per cent of people said that they were happy with the structures that are proposed for creative Scotland. How does that marry with the remarks that you have just made about definitions? Are all those people incapable of seeing that the proposals could not work?
I presume that you are referring to the previous consultation on the matter—the consultation on the draft culture (Scotland) bill—as there has not been a consultation on the present bill.
There was a high degree of support. I will find the exact quote in a minute or two, but the important point is that many people are happy with the proposals, whereas a few people, such as you, are saying vocally that the approach is confused and is sowing
The proposals for creative Scotland are widely recognised throughout the sector as confused and unsatisfactory. I cannot comment on whether, in the short timescale, everybody got their points of view in to the committee. The consultation period was over the committee's Easter holiday. I suppose that, even if 90 people out of 100 said that they were happy with the proposals but those proposals are muddle-headed and wrong, it is surely the committee's job to point out that they are wrong.
If.
Yes—if.
Lorne Boswell said that the bill lacked any reference to specific art forms. Are you implying that if theatre, drama, ballet or whatever is not mentioned, it will not be prioritised?
My point was better and more clearly made by Donald Smith, who talked about the need to define the territory that the organisation should cover. The cultural or creative industries are very amorphous; although people in other industries are clearly creative or cultural, they do not operate in what I understand to be the cultural industries. Of course, you might understand the term differently.
So we have to strike a balance between economic and cultural priorities. After all, some creative forms are highly lucrative and cash intensive, while others are not. By making creative Scotland responsible for creativity and the creative industries, will the bill change the nature of support from that currently provided by Scottish Screen and the Scottish Arts Council? Will it mean a major change in focus or will the focus remain the same as it has always been?
You have to make a distinction between benefits and purposes. The economic benefit that is provided by the arts has always been very much encouraged, recognised and supported, and I presume that that will remain part of the work, along with a focus on social, educational and wider cultural benefits.
Needs are changing. For example, as Dr Holloway pointed out last week, video games are being invented now that could not have been thought of 15 years ago. Indeed, as you made clear earlier, the fact that forms change is all part of the creative process. Does creative Scotland need to take an open view of creativity that will cover the whole spectrum of economic and, if you like, less economic artistic activity?
As I was saying to Donald Smith before the meeting, this particular focus is not a new concept. Thirteen years ago, I was a member of an Australian Council for the Arts board that looked at 15 or 20 major arts organisations around the country to find out not whether they could make more of an economic impact on the country but whether they could be put on a far better business and financial footing to make them, where possible, less dependent on the public purse—which was, I suppose, the more pragmatic view—and to ensure that they began to think of themselves as businesses. Many arts organisations will find such an approach quite different. I would hope that creative Scotland's approach will help arts organisations to consider themselves as businesses. Outcomes will have to be considered in economic terms as well as being considered in social, cultural and environmental terms.
My perspective is different. Economic consideration of the individual artists—the workers—is what matters most. If that is not prioritised, we risk continuing to export the talent that we create here. It is within the remit of the existing bodies, and it is certainly within the proposed remit of the new body, to take a much greater interest in supporting and sustaining employment for creative personnel in Scotland—by which I mean the artists and those who support them.
So you will be pleased about the potential to spend more money on broadcasting in Scotland.
Undoubtedly pleased. The Scottish Broadcasting Commission is long overdue and is ventilating a really important debate in Scotland. The tragedy is that it could have come about under the existing structures, but I entirely applaud the Government for launching the debate.
Getting back to the Creative Scotland Bill, we have to work out a balance in the budget between the arts groups that Barbara Absolon spoke about—the ones that are moving towards becoming businesses—and the arts groups that cannot ever be businesses but are important parts of the artistic and creative output. Through its strategic assessments of 2006, and through the structures for supplying money that it has set up, the Scottish Arts Council is beginning to make that kind of decision. Should the bill include provisions on the way in which money is split between the commercial and the non-commercial?
That rather ignores two facts: that the introduction of commercial motivation is new; and that the budget is going down. The proposed new organisation will have a much wider remit but will have less funding.
I will follow up on that somewhat apocalyptic vision. I have been involved in community arts all my life, and I am not sure that community arts groups have ever felt that the Scottish Arts Council was particularly good at supporting them. That is my starting point for considering your remarks. Creative Scotland will be an enabling organisation, will it not? It will develop a vision, will it not?
Judging by last week's presentations, I think that not much of a coherent vision has been developed yet for creative Scotland. It is slightly naive to believe that enabling without investment is a significant role. If there is to be a major enabling role, why is that not in the bill? There is no statutory link between what the local authorities are doing and what creative Scotland will do. I accept that the committee has been a great supporter of community arts, but a flourishing community arts sector depends on a strong link between a national body or bodies and the local authorities. That is not provided for in the bill. It is right that we should emphasise the role of creative Scotland as a strategic enabler, but that needs somehow to be written into the bill. The language used in the bill—"may give advice" or "may be asked to give advice"—is weak. What does that mean? I agree that there are problems that should be resolved. One of the areas where dramatic improvement is needed is the relationship between local authorities and the central cultural bodies, as they are at the moment. The bill does not provide for such improvement.
Whether the committee should decide to amend the bill on that basis is an interesting question. You have made a case that the bill is too vague. If the enabling element in it is related to other quangos, local authorities and so on, the spirit of that has already been captured by what we were told last week by Anne Bonnar and others. Do you agree?
No. You use words such as the "spirit" and the "theology" of the bill, but this is a piece of statute that will define the functions of Scotland's lead cultural body for perhaps the next 30 years. I do not believe that it is enough to provide spiritual inspiration and trust the people to get on and do it.
To summarise what you have been saying, do you think that the bill is too focused on the economics?
I was talking about the overall remit of the bill and whether we should just depend on the spirit of it. I said that I was confused. It states in the paperwork that creative Scotland will be the lead agent for the creative economy as well as the arts. As a separate point, there seems to be a sort of mission drift in the transition project towards the economic.
If we compare the previous bill with this one, we see that the Government seems to have taken that point on board and has removed some of the mentions of the economic benefits of the arts. What else would you like removed from the bill or added to it, over and above what the Government has already done?
As I have already said, I would add a clear definition that the arts and their benefits are at the core of the agency's work. The idea that creative Scotland can be the lead agency for the creative economy—whatever that means—is one that needs to be challenged, as it was at the committee last week.
Where should we draw the line between the economic purpose and the creative purpose? Should creative Scotland formulate a strategy for the creative industries in Scotland, or should that be the job of Scottish Enterprise or some other body? On a practical level, if an artist or a small artistic business wishes to seek support, should their first port of call be creative Scotland, Scottish Enterprise or the local authority? Is it clear where they should go?
Under the present, adjusted arrangements, as announced by Scottish Enterprise, a local business should be able to go to the business gateway or the local authority. It should be able to do that whether it is a cultural enterprise or an arts enterprise. What does one mean by that? The bill says that such enterprises include anything from hairdressing to drama to video games. The range is huge.
Whatever the bill says, I do not think that there will ever be a single answer to the question. You can legislate for anything, but it depends on the people who are in position, how they operate and the partnership approach of organisations. The spirit of the bill and the intention of the people who are in place play a large role—probably a larger role than what is written on paper to define things.
The question is difficult, because it goes to the nub of the issue. Who is in charge? Who should be in charge? Surely it is for the Government to say which agency should lead in a particular area. At the moment, perhaps partly because of the reforms that are happening to Scottish Enterprise as we speak, there is a lack of clarity about that. I do not think that creative Scotland is geared up to the same level as Scottish Enterprise to deal with the economic side of things. Historically, creative Scotland's predecessor organisations never had that brief and I do not think that creative Scotland has the necessary expertise.
I have some questions on relationships and territory, the first of which is for Barbara Absolon. You said that you hope that creative Scotland will be a dynamic partner, involved in your work. Did you say that on the basis that the Scottish Arts Council was not such a partner?
We have involvement with the Scottish Arts Council, but probably not as much as with other partner organisations around the country. However, it should be remembered that we work on events, while the SAC mainly works, as it should, with practitioners, performing organisations, visual artists and so on. There is a difference between arts organisations and events organisations, even though the two areas may involve the same organisations. We work in partnership with the SAC as appropriate, but we have not had as many opportunities to work with it as we have had with, for example, Scottish Enterprise, which has budgets for events and festivals. Naturally, therefore, Scottish Enterprise has been one of our partners in funding events and festivals, along with councils and so on.
I just wondered why creative Scotland might be more of a partner for you than the SAC has been. I am interested to know what blocked the SAC from having the dynamic role that you say that creative Scotland will have. I do not know whether the SAC said, for example, "Our royal charter prevents us from doing this," or whether the new bill will allow the chief executive of creative Scotland to say, "Yes, that's something that we very much can fund out of our reduced budget."
It is partly because creative Scotland is being established. I will explain what I mean. We have already had discussions with creative Scotland to look for ways in which EventScotland can further assist artistic endeavour through events that may not have been apparent before and which may not even include creative Scotland putting in money. It could act as a partner in identifying opportunities for us to apply our funds better in that cultural area.
Yes, but the point is whether we need the bill to bring that about. I was struck by your written evidence:
Things can be prescribed in the bill, but we hope that we can work more in partnership with creative Scotland. We believe that using the media both in and outwith Scotland is a valuable way of focusing attention on Scotland, particularly on the events and festivals that are held here. I would imagine that that would come about more through relationship building and creating mindfulness in creative Scotland. If it decided to pursue those sorts of endeavours, we could do that jointly. However, I do not think that that will be the result of anything that is written on a piece of paper.
Yes, but your evidence to us was clear:
Perhaps that was on our wish list—
Sacking the previous chief executive of the Arts Council? No—sorry.
No—definitely not that.
It is fair to say that that aspiration is not associated with the bill.
I would say not.
Mr Boswell, with regard to the new organisation's relationships with other bodies, including other arts organisations in Scotland, you highlighted a concern that because it will be set up as a charity, there may well be competition or a conflict of interests resulting from its status as a funding organisation, a development body and a charity that can draw in funding for itself. Could you expand on that?
It will not be set up as a charity; the correct position is, I think, that it will be set up so that it can trade through charitable arms.
Relationships are an issue that Mr Smith might want to comment on, too.
Equity’s submission states:
My understanding is that the bill will get rid of the name Scottish Arts Council and change it to creative Scotland. From my reading of it, everything else in the bill could be achieved without legislating. If you are asking me whether the bill is absolutely necessary and will lead to the betterment of the creative sector in Scotland, I am afraid that the answer must be no.
As things stand, we must accept that that is the position. I repeat the point that I made earlier—it is important that a royal commission was set up to consider the role of the Arts Council. The Parliament should give Scotland's new lead cultural body a remit. The relationship between democracy and culture is extremely strong in Scotland, so Parliament should do a job and give the new body a remit.
So you think that the relationships with the other bodies should be more clearly expressed in the bill.
They would have to be, to make sense of the situation. The discussion that has gone on since the publication of the bill is horrifically reminiscent of the Cultural Commission process, whereby everyone got completely bogged down discussing various policies and the relationship between one public body and the next. The commission produced a report of such complexity that the whole thing collapsed under the weight of its own verbiage.
We have heard a number of comments relating to the financing of the new body. Dr Smith suggested that it is being asked to do more with less support and less investment. Can you expand on your concerns, or your support, regarding the finances of the new body as you currently view them?
There has been an expansion of remit in the economic direction—the bill and the explanatory notes are specific. Section 2, "General functions of Creative Scotland", refers to
That is an open-ended expansion of the remit of the previous bodies: none of them were concerned with hairdressing.
I do not have much to say on that, because I do not have a great deal of knowledge about how well or otherwise the funds are used within the current organisations. However, I picked up what Donald Smith and Lorne Boswell said about defining culture. Lorne included sport and Donald included a whole range of other things. Culture needs to be defined so that there is a defined purpose to which the budget can be applied on a priority basis.
EventScotland's submission says:
That is not really what we meant. As has been noted in evidence from other panel members today, the grant scheme, in many respects, just needs a rethink. Grants have to apply right across from small community groups to the large arts organisations. With the establishment of the new organisation, we felt that there should be a rethink about all that, but we are not prescribing what it should do and what the outcome should be.
Is it not a key function of the proposed body to distribute investment, grants or support to the artistic communities of Scotland?
Yes. What our evidence means is that this is an opportunity to stand back and take a look at the way that it is done at present, before the combination of the two organisations.
Do you think that the new organisation will be financed to a level where it will be able to perform that function?
When you are outside an organisation, it is difficult to tell how well the current funds are being used and, therefore, what funds are required to go further forward. You have to be in an organisation or very close to it to be able to assess that properly.
Mr Boswell, could you respond?
There are major problems. I believe that the new body's resources will be the combined resources of the two bodies that are being merged. Creative Scotland's responsibilities, however, will be much greater and there will be the costs of reorganisation. I suggest that the figure for those costs that was given to the committee last week was a back-of-an-envelope figure and that the costs will be significantly more than that. Those costs will come out of the grants that you have just been talking about. People and organisations will suffer and, as a consequence, the employment that would have been offered to people, such as the members of Equity, will not be created. There is a big issue around resources.
I have a final question, although I am not sure that the panel is in a position to answer it. Last week, there was a discussion about the transition costs for setting up the new organisation. The committee has now received a letter, but I do not know whether it has been made available to the panel and others. Does the panel have any views about the costs of transition? The policy memorandum says that the costs will be met from savings. The letter that the committee received today suggests in one sentence that the costs will not come from savings, but goes on to suggest that they will. I am not entirely sure; I wonder whether the panel is?
I have one comment about that, and although it is hard to grasp the details, I have read the supplementary information.
The bill says that ministers may not give directions about artistic and cultural judgment. That is a contrast to the previous bill. Do the panel members welcome that move?
I think that we do, but we would rather see the arm's-length principle completely reasserted. It is about not what ministers will say, but what civil servants will say. For example, if the Government of the day prioritises the rural economy as opposed to the urban economy, the implication is that civil servants will put pressure on the chief executive of creative Scotland to chime with the Government's strategic objectives. Inevitably, that will lead to artistic decisions and mean that rural organisations will be funded instead of urban ones.
So there was less ministerial direction under the Arts Council.
No, you can trace it back almost directly to the crisis at Scottish Opera when the minister started getting involved directly and giving specific instruction that this money was going to that organisation. That blew the Arts Council out of the water completely and it has been a very timid body ever since.
So even though it is stated explicitly in the bill that ministers may not give direction on decisions relating to artistic judgment, you are not convinced that artistic integrity is sufficiently protected. What would you like to see in the legislation to provide that protection?
I am happy with the reassertion that the body will exist at arm's length from Government.
I thought that the adjustment to the wording in the bill was wise and gracious—it makes a clear distinction about artistic judgment in the sense of artistic content decisions. That was very welcome and a response to the consultation on the previous bill.
I ask the panel to focus on governance, as laid down in schedule 1 to the bill. I have a couple of quick wee questions to start: who should make up the membership of creative Scotland and why should lords not be disqualified?
A body such as creative Scotland will depend on volunteers—people with expertise—coming forward and going through the now-accepted process of public appointments. I cannot see it happening in any other way.
It is important that people with arts experience should be represented in the structures of governance, including artists. Over the years, it has been remarkable how little the voice of the artists—I include actors, writers and so on—has been represented and heard in the structures of governance. There is a constant presumption that somehow, such people are in self-interested groups, but everybody is self-interested in one way or another. It is important that the people who are in the front line are represented in the structures of governance.
I keep going back to the fact that arts organisations are businesses and should adopt business thinking. The governance mix should be pretty much as it is across a broad range of organisations. Artists need to be represented as well as financial and marketing minds. That would take arts organisations ahead in much the same way as commercial ones.
Should there be representation from particular constituencies? For example, would we have a Gaelic speaker because they are a Gaelic speaker or because they have something to offer the organisation?
The latter.
Absolutely.
Dr Smith alluded to ministerial appointments. Most people are appointed to public bodies by ministers. Good ministers take advice first, and we have a robust public appointments system. Are those protections sufficient for the board of creative Scotland?
Yes. The arrangements are equivalent to those for other public bodies. They make sense.
This is easy.
That interesting question must be considered in relation to the needs of the sector; it relates also to creative Scotland's remit. If creative Scotland is to be the first port of call for cultural and creative businesses that seek support and advice—businesses in the creative economy, or whatever the definition in the latest policy paper is—will it not need a distributed physical presence? A number of issues about its location relate to its remit.
The organisation will have to make the judgment. Often, being centrally located with other organisations has enormous advantages. Decentralisation can work, but the decision will necessarily rely on the advice of the management of the organisation.
I agree. We should leave it up to the body to decide.
I sense that, following the consultation, there was a feeling that we needed a culture bill, but I am not sure whether the bill that we have is the one that we need. In your comments this morning and in your written submissions, you suggested some improvements to the bill. What specific measures do you believe would make the bill better?
There should be a core definition of purpose—the arts should be defined. The bill should state that investment in art forms is made with consideration of the economic, cultural, social and educational benefits of the arts. That is what I would call a balanced ticket, but we do not have that in the bill at the moment. Some members of the committee have challenged that view, but you read for yourselves the transition project's submission on the creative economy. We need a balanced ticket, which should then become the basis for working out the relationships, roles and priorities.
I am agnostic about the need for the bill, so asking me how to improve it is asking the wrong question. Everything that the bill sets out to achieve could be achieved without legislation. If you were interested in the betterment of the sector, you would not necessarily come up with a bill such as this; inevitably, I think that you would provide more resources and place arts and creativity at the heart of so much more in Scottish life.
I do not have much to add. The creative economy has much broader meaning than simply the specific economic and direct benefits from arts organisations; it is about creating a place where people want to live and be. There are far-reaching implications. The balance that Donald Smith spoke about is very important.
It was perhaps unfair of me to suggest that you are frustrated with the bill, as in your answers to my colleague, Jeremy Purvis, you seemed to suggest that the bill could achieve such a balance, and do so with the people who are in place at the moment, and who will make up the new creative Scotland. Can it be done with the same people? What, within the bill, makes you think that things will change?
In our submission, we considered areas in which we feel that the amalgamation, the change to a new organisation—the simple fact of that happening shows fresh thinking—and the introduction of the bill will bring opportunities for a fresh start. Many of our comments relate to that.
As legislators, our difficulty is that we need to see evidence that the bill will make something happen. Although I understand your optimism, I am not sure that we can see a reason for it in the bill.
To clarify a point that came up earlier and which is germane to the discussion, Dr Richard Holloway said last week:
I have come here not to oppose the formation of creative Scotland, but to ask for creative Scotland to have a clear purpose and remit. To be successful, any organisation—above all a public sector organisation—must be set up with a clear mission and purpose. After the welter of discussions, commissions and policies that we have experienced over the past nine years, it is critical that we have something that will succeed and deliver.
So you would completely dismiss as inadequate paragraph 10(2) of schedule 1, which lists 10 or so of creative Scotland's general powers.
I am not dismissing anything. I am trying to make a constructive contribution on behalf of those thousands of people who are making the arts a success, who desperately want the new arrangements to be a success and who are looking at the bill and thinking, "What does it mean?" That carries with it a great weight of responsibility, given that so few artists and arts organisations have been asked to give evidence to the committee.
In its present format, is the bill that we have before us a missed opportunity? If so, what do we need to do to harness the opportunity that the bill could offer?
We should amend and improve the bill, which is the job of Parliament. Given that we have a good culture minister and a great deal of collective good will and purpose, I do not think that we face an insoluble problem. Let us amend the bill—let us focus it, sharpen it and make it really work. That is my view.
I have a final supplementary for EventScotland, because I want to get clear in my mind how some of the practicalities would work. An issue that has come up in our discussions is the difference between what the explanatory notes say and what the transition team has stated. The explanatory notes say that the bill will
whereas the transition team said:
No. I consider there to be a difference between the leading arts body and the national events organisation, which is what EventScotland is. There is a difference between arts bodies and events bodies, even though the activities of the events bodies involve many of the arts bodies.
Have any of the discussions that you have had involved the possibility of a transfer of funds from EventScotland to creative Scotland?
We have had informal discussions with the transition director, just to introduce ourselves and so on. A transfer of funds would not be involved.
Who says so?
We have a specific charter, on which our budget is spent. That charter does not involve transferring funds to other publicly funded organisations.
What status does your charter have? Your organisation was set up by ministers, so a minister could decide that the lead national development agency for the creative industries should lead the strategy for creative events in Scotland. There would be nothing to stop that under the framework that covers ministerial direction of your organisation and the framework that will be established under the bill.
I cannot argue with that. However, I would argue that it is highly unlikely that such a situation would arise.
But we do not know.
No, we do not.
That concludes the committee's questions. I thank the members of the panel for attending and for giving us their forthright views. I am sure that the committee will reflect on your evidence.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We are still on agenda item 1 and have been joined by our second panel of witnesses. I am pleased to welcome David Caldwell, who is the director of Universities Scotland and a well-kent face at the committee; and Professor Jan McDonald, who is the vice president of arts and humanities at the Royal Society of Edinburgh. I thank them both for joining us and for making written submissions in advance of the committee meeting.
Are you referring to the draft culture (Scotland) bill?
Yes.
The main point that the Royal Society of Edinburgh made in its response to the draft culture (Scotland) bill was about the arm's-length issue. As we said in our submission, the provisions on that have been considerably altered and improved. You will see when you get down to the detail of our submission that we think that the bill could have gone a little bit further, but it is positive that the main point was taken on board. That consultation process was fine. I have grave reservations about the earlier Cultural Commission consultation, but I hope that that is now water under the bridge and that it has flowed away.
I do not have any real criticism. It is always necessary to take a little bit of care if a slightly different proposal is introduced and if there has been a passage of time between a consultation and the consideration of a bill, but I do not have any serious concerns about the quality of the consultation.
Are both of your organisations content with the general principles of the bill? We will get into some detailed questions about the specifics and some of the things that you have said in your written submissions.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh welcomes the bill because it offers new opportunities. I like the idea of evolution—of things emerging from the amalgamation of the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen—that is in the policy memorandum. It is important to look forward in that way because—let us leave aside the structures and the money for two seconds—the art forms are joining together. Funding councils find it awful trying to decide whether something is a film project or a visual arts project. They are no longer discrete, so having a body that really has the expertise to judge cross-disciplinary applications—projects that are no longer theatre, painting or film but involve many of the arts—will be really splendid. That is absolutely an artistic positive; we can come to the other issues later.
I can only endorse that view, which was very well put. I can add nothing to it.
I am struck by what Professor McDonald said. How can we easily divide film and digital media and the creative industries, given the functions that Scottish Enterprise will retain?
Can I address the point about the creative industries?
I understand what you said, the thrust of which was about film and the remainder of the arts being brought together in one funding organisation. However, there must still be a funder for digital media, and that will be Scottish Enterprise—that function will not be transferred. How do we make an easy distinction between film and digital media?
Perhaps I am completely wrong here, but are digital media games?
We are asking because we do not know.
Somebody is nodding—digital media are games.
How can there be a clear line between what could well be games and music or other development in that sector?
Perhaps there is not such a clear line. I do not pretend to be an expert in digital media, but you mentioned creative industries. Would you like me to talk about those, too?
Yes, if you would not mind. However, I just want to be clear about this. I am looking at Scottish Enterprise's submission, which says that it is retaining the digital media and creative industries sector. How can there be a neat divide between that and what creative Scotland will do?
As I said, I am really not an expert. Very few people are—sorry, the University of Abertay is an expert in digital media. However, the subject did not arise in our discussions with fellows at the RSE.
Jeremy Purvis's point raises a broader question. Although we might be broadly content with what the bill tries to do, there are always issues at the borderline. It is not easy to draw neat demarcation lines between different types of activity. There is a strong case for treating digital media as part of the new package. That highlights the need to clarify the nature of the relationship between the various bodies that might have a role in the area. Creative Scotland will have a legitimate interest in the creative aspects of digital media—heaven knows that digital media have plenty of creative aspects. Equally, when it comes to promoting digital media as a business, Scottish Enterprise has an obvious interest too. The general issue to which such a divide draws attention is the importance of trying to be as clear as one can be about definitions while accepting that being absolutely definitive is always difficult.
And dangerous.
We had an interesting discussion with the previous panel about definitions, particularly of arts, culture and creative activity. Two members of that panel suggested that one of the great difficulties with the bill is that we do not have definitions, which creates a fundamental difficulty in setting out the parameters. Do you think that it is helpful to have full and acceptable definitions of arts, culture and creative activity?
I would perhaps separate "full" and "acceptable". You might get full definitions, but they might not be acceptable.
That is why I said full and acceptable.
This is not off the point—it is absolutely relevant. Recently, the Royal Society of Edinburgh was invited to present a report to the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council on research in the creative industries. As you can imagine, that involved our looking at a lot of definitions.
Does the belief that there is no need to define terms lead to difficulty in legislating to support all those activities?
It would probably be fine if one made use of the wonderful words "normally" and "including".
Parliamentarians have to scrutinise the bill carefully. The previous panel of witnesses said that there is a problem with the definitions. Do you take the opposite view? Do you think that the definitions are not a problem? Should we just get on with it and accept that we will never be able to define the arts, culture and creative activity?
If serious-minded people think that there is a problem, the issue must be addressed.
I concur. The existence of competing definitions of the same term exacerbates the problem, because it means that the legislation can be interpreted in a great variety of ways, depending on which definition is applied at any given time. I accept that there are huge difficulties in reaching a definition on which there is consensus, but one has to make the attempt and do the best that one can, or the goalposts will be forever moving.
You both said in your submissions that the prime motive is to support excellence in the arts—or culture or creativity, or whatever we call it—and you hinted that the new body will do more exciting work than happens under the current system. Why do you think that creative Scotland will be able to engender more support and enable people of artistic excellence better to flourish in Scotland?
I endorse what Professor McDonald said about how bringing together two organisations will make it possible to make connections that were previously difficult to make. Against that potential benefit we must set the fact that the approach is being managed within the existing envelope of resource—and what is more, efficiency gains are expected. There are great opportunities, but whether they are realisable depends on the whole enterprise being adequately resourced.
Beyond efficiency savings and the economic issues, how will artistic talent be further encouraged by the establishment of creative Scotland? Why will people of creative excellence feel more supported by the new set-up?
The general point is that if we want to get the most out of our arts and culture we must try not to control them tightly but to create the conditions in which they can flourish. If we do that, the benefits will arise.
Is that because the decision-making process will be better and the new body will have better communications, internally and with the artists?
That is still to be established. If the bill is enacted and the organisations are brought together, we will achieve that capability. However, huge issues will remain about how the organisation will operate in practice.
I have been encouraged and struck by the consensus among all those who have given evidence so far, last week and this week, that we are trying to ensure that artistic talent flourishes in the best way possible. As parliamentarians, we need to be convinced that the bill, either in its current form or in an amended form, will achieve that better than the existing system.
An analogy can be drawn with the National Theatre of Scotland, which is such a success. Part of its success is because it is different—it is not a great mausoleum or a monumental thing stuck on the South Bank, but a moving thing, with everybody involved. People have got better. Theatre artists have improved because of the existence of the National Theatre of Scotland. In part, that has been because the National Theatre of Scotland funds all sorts of groups, including community groups and repertory theatres, which are improving. I agree that the new body is a slightly different issue, but the point is that an idea can help people, too. People need time, models, space and conversations. Creative Scotland could create those, although David Caldwell is right that we do not know whether it will.
Forgive me, but that is part of the problem. The new body may or may not achieve what we want, and we need to be convinced that it will be a huge benefit. We must scrutinise the bill and be confident that the system will be better. That is why I am pursuing the issue.
David Caldwell has already touched on the point about whether creative Scotland will be funded properly, but what about the personnel and human resources? I understand completely that one cannot possibly sack the existing staff of the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen, and perhaps one would not want to do that—I do not know. However, we are taking those people into a new organisation, possibly with a new ethos, and giving them new responsibilities and remits. Are they buying into the changes? We—I include the Royal Society of Edinburgh—cannot say that the body will be fabulous and terrific, because we do not know, as there are too many imponderables. However, the body could work, given proper finance and a good human resources structure.
I will follow on from Liz Smith's questions. It is not only the bill that will allow the arts to flourish. If Governments promote tolerance and an educated society, that has a bearing on whether artists can create and whether they are attracted to Scotland. Those other issues, which will not be contained in a bill, will have an effect on whether artists are attracted to Scotland and on whether artists within Scotland flourish.
There is a terrible paradox that sometimes the arts flourish best when they are censored. I do not suggest that the Scottish Parliament should introduce censorship of the arts, but it is interesting that the experimental and innovative is often counter-culture, rather than supported by culture. Members will probably not remember the big hoo-hah about the 7:84 Theatre Company having its grant cut. The Scottish Arts Council cut the grant when 7:84 got less political, not more political, which I thought was wonderful and the way that things should be, because it had been funded to go against the funder—I like that. I do not know whether wonderful tolerance and joy creates better art. However, you are absolutely right that the correct creative conditions are important.
I support that view. A lot of evidence, some of which is cited in our submissions, shows that encouraging education also encourages engagement with the arts and culture. We have produced statistics that demonstrate the greater artistic engagement of graduates as opposed to non-graduates. If you were to ask me whether additional investment in our universities would assist better cultural engagement, I would have to say that the answer is yes.
We are being presented with an opportunity with the new organisation. We also live in times of straitened finances, and the arts are no more set upon by the Treasury than anything else is. Indeed, at the beginning of this year, Parliament passed a budget to which no one suggested any amendments that would include extra money for the arts. That is where we are.
It is not my job to defend the Scottish budget, of course, but I accept the reality that there is no extra resource for the arts. I also accept the high desirability of achieving the Government's purpose of achieving an increased rate of sustainable economic growth—we all desire that.
I agree. It would be wrong to see art for art's sake and economic benefit as opposites, because they are not. Usually, the better the art is, the more money it can make—think of "Black Watch".
I would like to concentrate on the part of the Universities Scotland submission that says:
Even I would not dare to suggest that the universities alone would provide the means, but they might be a part of providing the means. The critical element is the talent. The universities have a significant role, but not the sole role, in fostering and developing talent.
I agree. I said that I do not think that the priorities are mutually exclusive. Let us take the budget as given, although reducing it in 2011 is a wee bit hard. One would have to be careful about several matters, one of which is fiscal rigour. A perfectly good way to achieve that is not to appoint consultants—my first rule would be to get rid of the consultants. I would examine closely the organisation's internal expenditure. This might not be comfortable to hear, but the money is given not to creative Scotland per se but to creative Scotland to do a job, and it should go mostly to the job rather than to creative Scotland.
We are interested in your remarks, as I am sure Anne Bonnar will be.
She is one of our graduates—that is fine.
Excellent.
Essentially, that is correct. Drawing the demarcation line is not easy, because activities shade into one another, but what you said is basically where the divide should be.
I will ask about the relationships that creative Scotland is expected to have with other organisations. Greig Chalmers, who is a Scottish Executive official, gave evidence to the committee that he expects creative Scotland to continue the work of Scottish Screen and the Scottish Arts Council in considering future funding support for further education and higher education. What contact has the transition team had with the sector to discuss such issues?
David Caldwell is more of a sector representative than I am.
Neither of us is immediately aware of any contact, but I say that with the qualification that I know by no means everything that happens in the sector. There could have been contact of which I am unaware.
I believe that tentative contact took place with my former department—the department of theatre, film and television studies in the University of Glasgow. To the best of my knowledge, no contact has been made with the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
I was not entirely sure, but I had formed the impression from Edinburgh College of Art's submission that the sector had not been contacted. Given that creative Scotland has said that it is intended to be the leading development agency for creative industries, what would be the appropriate relationship with the sector?
I mentioned that the Royal Society of Edinburgh had just done a big report for the funding council on research that would be relevant to the creative industries. One of the main points was that there are pockets of very good practice, but by and large those are discrete and there is not much collaboration. Although they are fine in and of themselves, there is a possible role for creative Scotland in collaboration with the universities to act as a facilitator to create a hub, set up colloquia or whatever so that people can more easily get together. The Scottish Arts Council commissioned research reports and so on.
There ought to be two types of engagement. The first would be a great deal of dialogue. Making the assumption that there is a shared interest in trying to create the conditions in which the arts in Scotland can flourish, the universities have an enormous amount to contribute. If creative Scotland is to be the lead agency charged with optimising those conditions, it ought to engage in a continuing dialogue with the university sector, which includes the art colleges and the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama. Jointly, they can make a much greater impact.
I wonder how that will be developed in practice. The current environment for organisations in the sector involves working with Scottish Enterprise—including Careers Scotland—and the funding council, and having bilateral partnerships with the Scottish Arts Council. The new environment will involve creative Scotland, Skills Development Scotland, Scottish Enterprise, local authorities and the funding council. How will that operate?
Of itself, that is not necessarily a difficulty. All higher education institutions are accustomed to having complex multiple relationships. It would be difficult to establish the relationships if there were significant overlaps and doubts about who was responsible for what. The new landscape will obviously take a little bit of adjusting to, but it should not present more difficulties to universities than the existing landscape, which is also complex.
In practice, how will that clarity be brought about? You are saying that the current situation is fragmented and that the new situation will also be fragmented. Will the bill be able to establish a framework to ensure that the relationships will be better organised?
There is no guarantee that they will be better organised. The question gives me the opportunity to draw attention to one of the weaknesses in the bill, which is that it does not recognise the importance of certain relationships, notably the role of the universities in developing the arts and culture in Scotland. Working within the landscape will not be a problem as long as there is a better understanding of the contribution that various institutions have to make to the overall objective. One of the disappointing things about the bill is that it seems to reflect a mindset that does not fully appreciate the central role of the universities in the work of the creative sector.
I agree.
So we keep our fingers crossed.
Yes. There is a lot of work to do.
I am not sure that I want just to keep my fingers crossed. You gave us some practical examples of developing the relationship, but Universities Scotland's submission expresses concern about recognition of the role and function of universities. Is there anything we could do to the bill to improve it and facilitate that recognition and relationship?
I do not think that it is essential for the bill to be amended to mention universities: there is no legislative need for them to be singled out. It is striking that they are not mentioned, however, because the legislative necessity of the bill appears to be relatively limited. There has to be legislation to remove the Scottish Arts Council's charter, but not a great deal else in the bill requires legislation. Much of it could be done without legislation.
We are left with a question: what is the purpose of the bill? One purpose could be to define and describe the landscape and the various bodies that have a contribution to make. In so far as the bill does not do that, it is slightly disappointing. However, I acknowledge that there is no legislative necessity to mention the universities. The important thing is that we have the right relationship with creative Scotland when it is established. That relationship does not have to be enshrined in legislation.
The only case in which it would need to be mentioned in the bill is if training was formally included as a responsibility of creative Scotland, but I do not know whether that would be a good idea. The universities are autonomous. Obviously, the art schools and RSAMD have their own expertise and they do not need anyone else. They should talk to each other, but I do not think that creative Scotland should have a monitoring role.
Does the bill allow for, or establish enough funding for creative Scotland to be able to work effectively?
No.
As ever, the bill is ambitious. The present Government—like most Governments, to be fair—wants to achieve more with the same or less money than has been spent before. That is a difficult trick to pull off. When so much arts funding should be disbursed in the form of grants to support particular kinds of activity, it is not easy to make annual efficiency gains without reducing the real amount of support that is given.
All bodies have difficulty making efficiency gains, but the added difficulty in this situation is that the new body is being asked to perform different functions, and it is not clear what priority those functions will be given in legislation. There is a fear that the new things that the body will be asked to do will place extra demands on its funding, which could exacerbate the problems that currently exist, rather than improve the situation.
That is right; I think the new body will disappoint people. What is more, it will make people disaffected, which is possibly even worse.
Is there anything we can do with the bill to address the problem—perhaps we could make it clearer where the priorities for funding should be, or tighten the definitions?
You need to be terribly careful, because if you start saying in legislation what the priorities should be, the arm will get a bit shorter. I do not think that we can do that.
In the absence of clarity from the Government about the role of Scottish Enterprise and the new body, one option is that the committee could take a view that, because there has been no transfer of funds or personnel from Scottish Enterprise to the new body, there will be no funding for the new functions. If there were to be such funding, that would be at the expense of the current arts organisations that benefit from the present arrangement. Would that be a beneficial step?
I do not want to comment on cuts to Scottish Enterprise. I really do not know the answer to your question.
You have to be careful that, when you take strategic decisions to help one area, you do not do equivalent or greater damage to another. The real challenge is probably to successfully make the case that investment in the arts and culture is a good investment that produces a worthwhile return. We probably need to develop the evidence base in that regard. We already know some encouraging things. For example, the strength and excellence of our arts and culture contribute greatly to the development of the creative industries sector, which is the most rapidly growing industrial sector in Scotland. It is growing quickly in many other parts of the world, but it is particularly strong in Scotland. That fact could be used to build an evidence case, in economic terms, that could justify higher investment.
No one disagrees with that: the question is whether that funding should go through Scottish Enterprise or creative Scotland.
We raised that issue in our submission. We are asking for clarity; we are not complaining.
Mr Caldwell, is creative Scotland the body through which to channel funds for school-based initiatives or educationally directed policies such as the youth music initiative?
It may be a useful body through which to channel certain funds for certain projects. However, I would like to emphasise a point that we made in our written evidence: universities already devote a huge amount of resource to artistic and cultural activities. They devote much more than the earmarked funding that they receive from the funding council, and more than they get from other agencies. It is a core part of the function of universities and they will always want to be actively engaged in artistic and cultural activities—although it obviously helps if additional funding can be secured from a variety of appropriate agencies.
I want to return to the arm's-length principle. The submission from Universities Scotland says that you are pleased that a commitment is explicitly defined in the bill. Are you both happy that the principle is sufficiently protected? Why might a royal charter be needed to protect it?
We are very pleased that things have got better, but we feel that they could get better still. In the submission from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, under the heading "Directions and guidance", we say that it looks as if everything will be absolutely fine, but that section 5(3) seems almost to contradict section 5(1), by making ministerial power appear to become more obtrusive again. We suggest that it would be really nice to cut out section 5(3), or at least section 5(3)(a). Section 5(3)(b) is not so bad, but section 5(3)(a) slightly contradicts section 4(4).
I have little to add to that. The powers of ministerial direction could probably be curtailed a little further. I do not have a precise form of words to suggest, but the arm could be shortened rather than lengthened by the bill, if I may put it that way.
, Professor McDonald—you had a wee bit to say in your written submission about appointment to the board of creative Scotland and about the public appointments procedure. Will you elaborate on who you think should be in the membership? Should there be specific constituencies of people?
The board members should be the great and the good, or the lesser and the better. I do not think that there should be constituencies. You would get into terrible trouble with that idea, because you cannot possibly satisfy everybody. The idea of involving performers is very good in principle, but if they are really good performers they will not be able to attend, because they will always be working.
I agree that there should not be constituency representation. That is not the right way to form a board for any organisation because the board member's commitment must be to work for the organisation, not to represent a constituency. However, that said, it is important that the membership consists of people from a variety of backgrounds with valuable contributions to make to the board's work.
We have a Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland and, in my opinion, quite a robust public appointments system. Are you confident that that system is robust enough or could it be improved?
It is a pretty robust system. Almost every system is capable of being improved, but it is a pretty good system and works well.
Does Jan McDonald have anything to add?
No, that is fine.
Are you content with the committee structure that is proposed in the bill? Could that be another route to engage with other players in the arts?
The committee structure is also helpful. Again, people from the university sector could make a constructive contribution to many of the committees, but they would be chosen individually for their particular expertise.
That concludes the committee's questions to you. Thank you for attending the meeting.
Meeting closed at 12:18.