Creative Scotland
Welcome to the fourth meeting in 2007 of the Enterprise and Culture Committee. I have received apologies from Richard Baker and Shiona Baird—I welcome Shiona's committee substitute, Mark Ballard. Susan Deacon will join us shortly.
Karen Gillon will also be late—she had to attend to a constituency matter at lunch time.
Okay. I ask everyone to switch off their mobile phones.
I welcome Patricia Ferguson, the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, and invite her to introduce her officials and kick off the discussion.
I am joined by Greig Chalmers, from the Education Department, and Greg Allan, from the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department.
I am grateful to the committee for its invitation to speak about what creative Scotland will mean for culture in Scotland and about the creative industries. It is important to say that we are not proposing the establishment of a new body because we want to solve a particular problem or address a failure. Scotland has a vibrant and colourful culture, which is a feature of a successful nation. I pay tribute to the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen, which have played a commendable part in contributing to that success.
We are proposing the establishment of a new body because we want to bring even more energy and ambition to the stimulation of creative and cultural endeavour. Creative Scotland will be Scotland's new national cultural development body and will have an exciting and challenging remit to support and develop artists, cultural and creative talent and excellence. As members know, we are encouraging closer joint working between the Scottish Arts Council, Scottish Screen and all cultural bodies. I have appointed a joint board under the leadership of Richard Holloway, which I think had its first meeting last week.
Last year, in the document "Scotland's Culture", we considered how best to stimulate the creative industries. We all have an interest in the issue and want to make progress, but it is important that we do not underestimate the complexity of what we are dealing with. The creative industries are made up of diverse enterprises, which have some things in common with the rest of the economy but which also have special and distinct features. The important point is that the creative industries are a successful and expanding part of the Scottish economy.
As members have heard, support is given to the creative industries through a wide range of efforts on the part of the public sector in Scotland. Support comes from a number of organisations, such as the Scottish Arts Council, Scottish Screen, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Cultural Enterprise Office. Other organisations have important roles and we must acknowledge the significant progress and successes that have been achieved.
Last year, in the course of discussions, I realised that businesses and entrepreneurs want a simple and straightforward mechanism for accessing business support. We can deliver that—much support is given in the current set-up, but we need to consider how we improve the situation. I am committed to working with the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to consider how better advice and assistance can be delivered, in a more straightforward way. Like me, he wants to ensure that our economic development policies concentrate on the areas and industries that bring the most benefit to people in Scotland and our economy, which sometimes means that we must make hard choices about priorities.
We will not make changes just for the sake of it or just to make the situation look tidier on paper. What matters is the success of what we do to help businesses and what businesses achieve. Executive departments are working closely together to gather and assess the evidence that will help us to make the right decision. The issues are complex. The creative industries are disparate and diverse, as I said. Needs vary and innovative solutions to problems are often needed. After we have reached our conclusion, a number of bodies might still be involved in delivery. I welcome the opportunity to discuss and reflect on those complex issues with the committee.
When the draft Culture (Scotland) Bill was published, the degree of ministerial intervention and direction that will be allowed was a major concern. During the committee's recent round-table discussion, a number of witnesses, including James Boyle, expressed concern about political direction of creative Scotland. What are your intentions in that regard? Of course, after the election there might be a new Administration—who knows?
We are talking about a ministerial power of direction, which would not necessarily be used. That is important. We are talking about a significant chunk of public money, and such powers are a mechanism that we use as a backstop whenever a new public body is set up, to ensure that public money is properly protected, in case there are difficulties further down the line.
Neither I nor my predecessor ministers have ever interfered with the artistic judgments of the Scottish Arts Council or Scottish Screen. We should not interfere with those, and I certainly do not want to do so in the foreseeable future. I hope that that reassures committee members.
Will you specify the circumstances in which a minister can give direction in a way that allays the fears of people who worry that the state will interfere in the running of the arts?
I assure anyone who inherits the job that the last thing that they will want is to have such day-to-day involvement or to become involved in artistic decisions. We would have to be careful if we tried to specify circumstances, because we might do so in a way that meant that we had ruled out intervening in a circumstance that we cannot foresee. The bill is the subject of consultation, so we hope that some useful ideas will be fed back that we can use. We are considering the form of words that we could use to describe the position better.
Other members want to ask about the issue, so I will bring in Christine May, Jamie Stone and Mark Ballard, after which I will return to the minister to discuss wider issues.
Good afternoon, minister and gentlemen. I would like the minister or her officials to comment on three issues that arose from our round-table discussion. One was the issue of being commercial versus art for art's sake. I simplify, but will you address the tension that will always exist because what is commercially viable might not necessarily be what someone wants to do artistically if we are talking about pure art?
The round-table discussion showed that the industry was to an extent all over the place on what it sees as the priorities. Will you talk a little about how you have tried to tease out the common priorities rather than specific significant issues for elements of the arts? The minister's role was perhaps the one matter on which all the witnesses agreed. I concur that clarity is needed on that.
The final matters are standards, excellence, service to communities not just in cities, but in other areas, and skills development.
That tranche of questions was broad. Some of my comments may overlap and, if I am honest, I want them to overlap. Guiding everything that we are trying to do is the idea of increased access for as many people as possible to the best that Scottish creativity and Scottish culture have to offer our citizens.
Some pieces of art are more commercial than others and some cultural endeavours are more commercial than others. Considering that is tricky. In trying to define a creative industry, we get into that debate. That is one reason why I do not think that ministers should be involved in making artistic decisions. It is not my job to do that. The Government's job is to put in place a framework—an infrastructure—that helps everything else to flourish, and to stand well back to let that happen. That is the approach that we have taken.
In "Scotland's Culture", I referred to the escalator model. I will digress slightly. It is interesting that I deal with a similar issue in sport, in which we refer to the player pathway, which represents the same concept of involving as many people as possible at the bottom and allowing them a mechanism that supports them through to the top, if that is where their skill, talent and ambition take them. Stepping-off posts are allowed on the way so that people have the opportunity just to enjoy the arts for their own sake as spectators or as participants, but they can take that further if they are able to. Such ideas underpin what we are trying to do.
That is important when we consider the skills agenda, which comes into play when we examine the commercial side of the business, because people want to have an identifiable and marketable skill and trade. I return to the question about the commercial side versus art for art's sake. Some overlap must exist, because if we do not have the artistic content, the skills will not be wanted.
The two things come together neatly. By way of example, I draw to the committee's attention screen academy Scotland at Napier University in Edinburgh, which, by sheer coincidence, I visited this morning. The academy provides masters courses in subjects that we might describe as artistic endeavours but which are tied to the mechanics of producing a film, such as screenwriting or composing film music. However, these days, producing a film goes beyond such mechanics and enters into new technology and new media.
We must make the connection across the different areas and sectors and we must be able to support that connection. At the moment, we are discussing how best it can be supported. That is a slightly broad answer to your question, but it helps to underpin where we are coming from.
I agree with the minister and support her in her endeavours. She mentioned the interface with enterprise—one of the officials with her is from the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department. This should not be the case but, unfortunately, some people might have the impression at first sight that nothing that we are discussing today impacts hugely on their working lives, although I do not believe that or agree with it.
I will get specific about my constituency, as ever. In Caithness, we face the rundown of Dounreay. We have socioeconomic studies on the area, but what can the minister say to me about how her endeavours—in particular, the interface with enterprise—could help people who are desperately worried about losing their jobs? Perhaps that question is for her officials rather than for her.
The debate was sparked off by the First Minister in his St Andrew's day speech, and I have been concerned to ensure that people understand that culture is not just something that they do when they go to the theatre, but that it must be embedded into their lives and the life of their communities. That is the reason for our entitlements agenda. When we talk to local authorities about that agenda, we also tell them that we want to see evidence of the ways in which they are using culture to achieve other ends and ambitions.
We are also trying to set an example on that in the Executive. For instance, the regeneration policy statement that the previous Minister for Communities published makes specific mention of the role of culture in regeneration, because we know that it can have a major effect. There are examples of that throughout the country. Culture is important because it gives communities confidence about themselves, what they can do and what they can achieve. Having a cultural hinterland in a community also makes it a place where people want to live.
Let us take Dundee as an example. Fifteen or 20 years ago, the local authority, with support from bodies such as the Scottish Arts Council, took a brave decision to focus on the arts in the city. It is no coincidence that, today, Dundee is thriving in a way that it was not previously, albeit that there were some glitches along the way. That success is due to not only the fact that Dundee has state-of-the-art facilities for people who want to work in bioscience, but the fact that people want to go there because they know that they and their children can enjoy everything that the city has to offer, be that the historic environment or the cultural environment.
Culture has a lot to offer communities, but we sometimes have to work hard to get it right.
I agree. I can see with my own eyes what has happened in Dundee, but the northern Highlands are different. Can I take it as a given that your department and officials apply a litmus test to what enterprise agencies and socioeconomic forums say and do to ensure that you have an input and are co-ordinating with them?
Yes. We are using our national collections, our national performing companies and others to try to ensure that standards exist for local provision for which people must aim and which they must achieve. If those collections and companies are to live up their names and reputations, they must be the very best that we have. That work is about access and excellence.
Places such as Caithness fit into the mould of an area in which the small creative industries can be very important—these opportunities work in our smaller-scale communities. For example, the impact of a small jewellery or silversmithing business that may employ only two or three people is felt much more in an area such as Caithness than may be the case in an area such as the one that I represent in Glasgow. We must never underestimate the opportunities or shy away from trying to promote them.
As a substitute member, I was not present at the round-table discussion. On reading the summary paper and the Official Report of the meeting, I was struck by a number of things, some of which Alex Neil and Christine May have mentioned.
I turn first to ministerial involvement. In that context, I note the remark made by Professor John Wallace of the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama that
"we need to slacken off ministerial control at every level."—[Official Report, Enterprise and Culture Committee, 23 January 2007; c 3612.]
What he said takes us back to the points that have been made about what is in the draft bill on the creation of the new body.
As you said, minister, the mechanism is used with all new bodies, but not with existing bodies such as the Scottish Arts Council, given that the mechanism was not in existence when they were established. You argue that it is important for the power of ministerial direction to be included in the bill in case there are difficulties. However, you also said clearly—indeed, you welcomed the point—that ministers should not be involved in artistic decisions. Again, in response to Alex Neil, you said that it was very difficult to draw up, either on the face of the bill or elsewhere, restrictions on when such powers could and could not be used.
Obviously, the danger is that a minister with less benign intent could use the power as drafted to get involved in artistic decisions. From what you said, there is nothing to prevent a minister with less benign intent from doing that. The 7:84 Theatre Company is an example of a theatre company that felt that part of the reason for its funding difficulties was what it perceived to be a political question mark over the politics of its material. I say that without knowing what happens at Scottish Arts Council meetings. The decision on 7:84 shows the importance of making it very clear that there is no political involvement and therefore no possibility of political decision making. I am talking about not only what is done but what is seen to be done. In that light, is there not still a danger that the powers that are of concern to the artistic community could be misused?
There are a number of things to say in response to the question. It would be a very unwise minister who would get involved in artistic decisions. Frankly, it would be foolish for a minister to get involved in such issues. It is fair to point out that, at the moment, I have certain powers with regard to both the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen. Given that next year those two bodies will between them spend something like £68 million of public money, I think that those powers are entirely legitimate.
I think that the Parliament would be concerned if we did not have a mechanism by which we could ensure that organisations spend their money wisely. That needs to be controlled in the sense that we need to make sure that the books are in order. That is the sort of mechanism that we are looking to put in place. Under the involvement that I have at the moment, I grant money, after which I send a letter in which I outline the strategic guidance. That will continue, but it may be put on the face of the bill.
You raised the issue of 7:84. The decision was made entirely by the Scottish Arts Council and was the result of a new system of vetting and considering applications. What is interesting about all that is that 7:84 appealed the decision and was able to come through what seems to me to be a fairly robust appeals process. The company came out the other end with a bit more than it had gone in with at the beginning. That is a very robust way of dealing with an issue.
An organisation that receives funding from the Scottish Arts Council or its successor body must be very good and must have satisfied the grant-giving organisation that it can be relied on to do what it promised to do—such decisions must be left to the grant-giving organisation. Like everyone, I read the newspapers with interest, but being a bystander would be the extent of my involvement in such matters. That is how it should be. The SAC is much closer to the artistic community than I am, so it can discuss and explain much better than I can the rationale behind decisions. The Government's job is to establish the framework and infrastructure and then, I hope, to stand back and allow culture and creativity to flourish in Scotland.
You said that the letter that you would send to the SAC or creative Scotland would set out not just the amount of grant but strategic objectives. The draft bill says that a function of creative Scotland would be to realise the value and benefits of the arts and culture,
"in particular, the economic value and benefits".
What is the rationale for giving particular status to economic factors, rather than the access issues that you mentioned, or social, health or other impacts of the arts?
The purpose of the letter of strategic guidance is to ensure that the overall framework for the SAC—or any other body—is in line with broad Executive priorities. We have said that growing the economy is our number 1 priority, so you would expect there to be a reference to economic factors, but the issue is about the whole gamut of Executive policy and about ensuring that we have the best possible approach to the arts.
As part of its remit, the SAC must ensure that there is excellence and that educational provision and pathways for artists are available—such responsibilities will also be part of the remit of the successor body. All those factors are involved and they are equally important, but I rely on the SAC to deal with the artistic aspects. We would not want a particular aspect to have a higher priority but we would want creative Scotland to bear it in mind when it considered its processes.
I do not want to labour the point, but the proposed ministerial power of direction has generated much interest in the culture sector. Can you give an example of how it might be used? You suggested in response to Mark Ballard that the power of direction might be used to make sure that "the books are in order"—I noted carefully what you said. Did you mean to say that? I would have thought that mismanagement of the books would be a matter for the police. If money was mismanaged people would be sacked and the issue would be dealt with through routes other than ministerial direction.
I do not want to labour the point about mismanagement of the books; the issue is governance in the general sense. It is about ensuring that arrangements are appropriate to the organisation. I hope that we would deal with a question about the books or anything else before it became a matter for the police. We would consider the matter and what needed to be done. The power would be used only in extreme circumstances and not on a daily basis. It is extremely unlikely that we would use the power. However, such a power is necessary to protect a large amount of public money—the Parliament would expect no less of us.
I accept what you said about how rarely the power would be used. Many people have accepted that argument and opinion, but fear that it sends out the wrong message to the artistic community about ministerial involvement, irrespective of the detail of what is proposed. How do you try to deal with that fear? Rightly or wrongly, the message has gone out that a ministerial power of direction for the arts is being taken.
The power is not very different from those that we have at the moment, but it would be included in the bill. We do not currently have culture legislation in that sense, so there has not previously been an opportunity to frame the power in that way. It is important to remember that this is a consultation, to which we will respond. As I said in response to a question from the convener, we will seek a form of words that helps people to understand exactly what is meant. We are working on that at the moment. It is interesting that on the one hand we are criticised for not taking enough interest in the arts, but on the other we are criticised for looking at them too closely. As I said earlier, the role of Government is to put in place a framework and then to stand back and allow the arts to flourish. That is the intention behind everything that we are trying to do in the bill.
I did not want to labour the issue, but I thought that it was worth raising. I will now move on.
During our round-table discussion, Mr Cosgrove mentioned some of our competitor areas, especially Wales and the north-west of England. I think that he said that they have a great deal more joined-up thinking than we have. How do you respond to that point? At our meeting, the impression was given that those areas are taking a bigger chunk of the digital industries' cake than we are taking. How should we respond to the competitive world in which those industries are involved?
The discussion that the Education Department and the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department are having at the moment is about the best way of supporting the creative industries in the broadest sense. The new media pose a new challenge, because they move so quickly and require such a swift response. We need to be able to respond quickly enough to allow that development to continue. We know that over the coming years the creative industries are likely to expand by about 10 per cent per annum and that those that specialise in digital content are likely to increase by about 20 per cent per annum, so there is a big prize.
Scotland is well placed to be involved, and we are doing fairly well at the moment. What we do should be judged on outputs, and at the moment those outputs happen to be particularly strong. The number of people involved in the creative industries—excluding those who are self-employed—increased by about 19 per cent between 2000 and 2004. That big increase is continuing. However, we need to do a bit more thinking and to have more discussion about the best way of reacting to and supporting that development. We need to be as fleet of foot as possible, because the creative industries are moving so rapidly. We must also ensure that all our partners engage with the issue. It is not enough for screen academy Scotland to have up-to-the-minute equipment and ensure that its students get the best education possible. We must also ensure that linkages are made between that organisation and broadcasters, so that broadcasters can use the facility to upskill existing members of staff in the new media that come along day by day. There is still a challenge for us. We are fairly successful in the area, but we can always do more.
I am glad that you mentioned broadcasting, which I want to move on to. You said that we are doing particularly well at the moment, but that there is always more that we can do. I agree. However, I understand that although we have 8.9 per cent of the United Kingdom's population, we are responsible for only around 4 per cent of its broadcasting production. How will we close that gap, so that many more of the high-quality broadcasting jobs and industries are based here?
The investment that has already been made at Pacific Quay and Seabraes Yards, for instance, is key. There must be a hub, and people must want to work there, where the very best is located. Companies need to want to produce there because the talent, the technology and the willingness are there. That is what we are bringing together at the moment. I think that the figure to which Stewart Maxwell refers is in fact about 6.9 per cent. Obviously, that still leaves a gap, which I would like to be closed.
We work closely with our Westminster colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport because broadcasting is a reserved issue, although we have a keen interest in it. We will take forward the issue in the future. We note the links that have been made by screen academy Scotland, with its broadcasting department at Napier University in Edinburgh. That is exactly the kind of thing that we should be doing more of. It is heartening to see such organisations understanding the need for that and working in a positive way.
I will not argue about the figures, although we might be talking at cross-purposes. Your figure might be correct for independent production, so I accept what you are saying. In any case, we agree that there is a gap and that it would be good to close it.
I will cover one final area, which is the issue of local cultural entitlements. There seems to be a great deal of confusion about exactly what they are supposed to be. Many people are suggesting that they should be entitled to an entitlement, but that is not what the consultation document on the draft bill says. Indeed, it is careful not to say that. How do you see local cultural entitlements working in practice? What difference will people see in their ability to access various areas of culture? I would like you to think in particular about how the entitlements would operate. Local councils will operate them and there are clearly vast differences between councils in terms of size and resources. For instance, how will Glasgow City Council operate with East Dunbartonshire Council or East Renfrewshire Council, which are tiny councils on the edge of a large urban area?
The entitlements should be about ensuring that people have more influence over what is provided to them in their areas. We do not expect there to be a standard for every local authority area; the arrangements should deliberately vary from area to area in response to the culture of each area and to what people say they would like. Not only should the entitlements be different in each local authority area, they should perhaps be different among different communities of interest.
In order that we can give more guidance to local authorities about that, we have undertaken a number of pathfinder projects in conjunction with local authorities around Scotland. For me, the really pleasing thing about that exercise has been the number of local authorities that have wanted to get involved. There has been a diverse range of activity as a result of the pilot projects. There are a couple of examples of projects that are aimed, during the year of Highland culture, at young people who can choose from a menu of options. There are projects that are aimed particularly at older citizens, who are often excluded from cultural activity. One of the projects is focusing on ethnic minority communities in order to highlight the need for those communities to enjoy their own culture and for us to enjoy it, too, to help widen our view of the world and our experience of other people's activities. There are a wide range of such projects. We will evaluate all of them, and we will pass on best practice to local authorities, based on the work that is being done.
We will also give to local authorities standards that will explain what we are looking for in terms of quality. It is not just about access, as I said earlier; we must ensure that there is access to the best that is available. That can vary hugely, but it must involve the very best in the form concerned. We will be asking local authorities to keep in touch with us—to evaluate, to monitor and to give us information, so that we can keep a check on what is happening.
It is absolutely right to highlight the fact that bigger local authorities might have more provision than smaller ones, so I would like authorities to talk to one another and to work in partnership. My dealings with people from the edges of particular political boundaries suggest that they do not necessarily recognise those boundaries or stick to them.
People who work in Glasgow might want to use cultural entitlements there. Where there are small local authorities round a large hub local authority, a lot of partnership working should take place. Authorities should bounce ideas off one another and encourage people to talk to one another about what happens in their areas. We do not want to be prescriptive, but we want to ensure that what is available is the best.
Did you say that you will set minimum standards for cultural entitlements?
We will not set minimum standards, but standards—we will provide examples of good practice and excellence. The initiative must be driven by what people want, so some of it will be about how we engage with people.
I apologise for missing your opening remarks; I am sure that you will be quick to tell me if you have already addressed issues that I will raise. You talked earlier about the importance of being fleet of foot. I want to ask you about three aspects of the decision-making infrastructure in the arts and creativity in Scotland. This can be a highly charged and polarised debate, but it is a fact that a range of Government departments both north and south of the border have different responsibilities that impinge on the role, work and development of the creative industries. I do not know to what extent you want to talk about the north-south interface, but I would be interested to hear your comments on the roles of the DCMS and the Department of Trade and Industry, and how those can be made to work better and more smoothly.
I also invite you to comment on the roles of bodies in Scotland, especially the enterprise network. Putting to one side any political or ideological baggage, what are you doing and what can be done practically to provide the context within which our creative industries can flourish even more and better than they have to date?
Your question goes back to the discussion that Nicol Stephen and I, and our departments, are having about how best to support the creative industries. It is important to recognise that the enterprise companies—Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies—provide a great deal of support to the creative industries. There are different models because of the different remits of the enterprise companies. Support also comes from the Scottish Arts Council, Scottish Screen and the creative industries offices that have been set up across the country as a joint project by the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Enterprise. A range of support is available.
There are a number of questions, but one of them must be to ask whether there is only one model that works. I suspect that there are more and that we must respond to different areas' requirements in ways that work for them. It is important that we ensure that organisations work together, that we increase opportunities for them to do that and that we encourage them to see the opportunities that exist. From an enterprise point of view, the aim may be to create jobs and dynamism in a local economy and community. From an arts point of view, the aim may be to increase the opportunities that exist for people to take forward their skills and talents in the arts. If the organisations that are involved in supporting the creative industries remember that those two aims can be combined, it is possible for them to work together. There have been some good collaborations, but we can do more to encourage them. The debate that we are having is about how best to do that. I would be interested to hear the committee's views on the issue.
To underpin the fostering of co-operation and collaboration, which I suspect all committee members support, do you envisage any mechanisms that will put in place the systems or practices that are required to ensure that co-operation? How much of that can be achieved voluntarily through appropriate encouragement and exhortation? Could anything more be done at a practical level—I stress the word "practical"—to ensure that people, industries and businesses that have good projects, ideas and products that they want to develop and exploit do not have to go round knocking on many different doors and trying to work out who the right person to talk to is?
That is very much what the Cultural Enterprise Office has tried to do around the country. Its services are jointly funded by the Scottish Arts Council and by Scottish Enterprise and have made a big impact in the areas in which they have operated. We started with one office and we now have six because of the success. We can learn from that lesson that we must think not in a silo but across the board.
Even if people see their art as their way of life and as how they want to earn their living, they still need to have basic business skills and acumen to succeed. They can be supported in gaining those skills. The support that the Scottish Arts Council would give to an artist is brought together with the support that an enterprise company would give to a small entrepreneur. Such skills are beginning to be taught in our further education colleges. It is vital to have modules in courses that people can pick up, or modules in other departments in a further education establishment to which people can opt in to obtain skill in finances, management and writing business plans. The example of the Cultural Enterprise Office is good.
It is important to respond to what is required. One solution does not necessarily exist; a range of ways to handle a problem may exist. At the moment, a range exists and the solutions work pretty well. Some work a bit better than others and we must learn the lessons of those that work particularly well and try to roll them out more across the board to make the picture more constant.
I will stick with the theme of being fleet of foot, for want of a better phrase. How will the creation of creative Scotland and the forthcoming legislation be managed to ensure that valuable time, energy and momentum are not lost in structural reorganisation or the legislative process? I guess that you share the concern to avoid that. How would you hope those two matters will, in the coming months and in the next year or two, be handled to ensure that momentum is not lost in the short term?
It is fair to say that when I produced the cultural statement—"Scotland's Culture"—I said that I wanted not to introduce a new bureaucracy that would cost us money but to free up as much money as possible to deliver at the front end of everything that we do. That has been behind the thinking on much of what we have tried to do.
That is why we have established the joint board between the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen, to ensure that skills and talents from both those bodies come together early. It is difficult to ask two existing bodies to work together to create one new body. It is much easier for the putative board of the new body to bring all the skills and that experience together to work towards that end. Where we can, we have tried to ensure that that happens. Much work is being done behind the scenes and in front of the scenes to make the transition as easy as we can and to take with us the best of everything that both organisations have to offer. That is very much the principle by which we have been guided. We have had great co-operation from the chairmen and boards of both bodies. The two bodies are working well together and are beginning to set in place the kind of body that we ultimately want to see. We have kept that consideration in mind all the way through—I hope that it will continue to guide us as we go forward.
Fortunately, when the legislation is introduced after the election—if I continue to be involved as I am just now—it will be taken forward primarily by me and my team. I hope that, far from stifling artistic endeavour in Scotland, the proposed change will underpin that endeavour and help it to flourish.
My final question, which I will try to keep brief, is about future gazing—if the minister can do that—and expressing hopes for the future. It is fair to say that, since devolution, culture has been the subject of much activity. Without question, culture has risen up the agenda with a great many policy statements and culture strategies. We have had a report from the cultural commission, the Executive's response to that report and we now have a draft bill. Does the minister hope or expect that the passing of the bill—let us assume that the bill is enacted and that the new organisation is set up—will result in an expectation of greater stability in the structure and legislation of the culture bodies and a rebalancing of emphases? Will the practical outcomes that we all hope for result from the proposed changes to structure and law?
It is interesting that culture and the arts in Scotland have flourished since devolution. I genuinely think that that is the case. One need only look at the example of our national companies, which have performed on the world stage and gained accolades wherever they have gone. That is just one example, but that experience filters down through every level of artistic endeavour in Scotland.
In a way, the debate has been a good thing because it has raised the profile of the arts and culture and it has got people involved in ways that they were perhaps not involved before. I think that there is a new understanding of how the arts give us opportunities for enjoyment, for building our confidence as a nation and for showcasing the kind of country that we are. All those things are vital. I believe that the arts have flourished and are continuing to flourish and I hope that they will continue to do so in the future. The debate has also helped to push the issue up the political agenda.
As I said to Mark Ballard earlier, I am concerned to ensure that we send out a signal that culture is not just about going to a theatre to enjoy something but about the way in which the community operates. Culture goes right down into your own life and into the life of your community. Culture matters. It also has a huge number of spin-offs in many other directions, such as regeneration and the economy. There are all sorts of things on which culture can have a good and benign effect. I want to see culture remain embedded in the lives of everyone in Scotland and I want everyone in Scotland to have the opportunity to enjoy the very best that the rest of Scotland and international artists have to offer.
I have a final question on a practical issue. Will the new body be located in Edinburgh or has that not been decided?
At the moment, Scottish Screen is based in Edinburgh and the Scottish Arts Council is in Edinburgh. Creative Scotland will be a new body, so we need to undertake a location review. That is happening at the moment. We hope to be in a position to announce the outcome of that review very shortly.
I thank the minister and her team. Their presence today is much appreciated.