Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 16 Apr 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 16, 2002

Official Report 236KB pdf

---

Scottish Ballet

Item 6 is correspondence from the Scottish Arts Council on the appointment of a director to Scottish Ballet. Members have a copy of the correspondence. I invite comments on whether we should take action or do otherwise. I think that Mike Russell might wish to make a contribution—perhaps a wee pirouette around the letter.

I will try to avoid commenting on the Scottish Arts Council's new logo before I do that. It is the first time that I have seen the logo properly.

The letter from Graham Berry is a masterpiece. It is a disingenuous reply and does not answer the key point of our letter, which involved the information that was before us. That information was that the company had found all the candidates for the post to be unsuitable. I recall that the company also expressed great concern that the candidates were promised more resources for the company's change to a contemporary company. What the candidates appear to have been told was contrary to what we were assured of by Mr Duncan McGhie. One might say, "Surprise, surprise."

Given those circumstances, Mr Berry's letter is inadequate. We must go back to him and to the company to ask them to address the concerns that we understand are still felt in the company. We must also ask what will happen if the dancers in the company do not agree on a candidate. Do they have a veto, or will the candidate be imposed on them?

Michael Russell raises valid points. My only comment is that we can hardly blame Graham Berry for not responding to them, because they were not in the committee's letter. If Mike is concerned that those points were not answered, we must write to Graham Berry and include them. Mike put the points very specifically. If the points were in the original letter, they were shrouded in a way that allowed Graham Berry to respond as he did. Perhaps a more in-your-face attempt at getting information from the Scottish Arts Council is required.

I concur. The points are referred to only tangentially. Our letter refers to a copy of the minutes of a meeting of the company. Graham Berry is not solely responsible for the matter—the company is primarily responsible. It would be useful to know the company's response.

I simply note my disappointment that it is only at the second stage of the selection process that the selection committee has been widened to include a representative of the dancers and one of the executive directors. That is welcome, but I recollect that at the committee's meeting with the Scottish Arts Council and the board of Scottish Ballet, we emphasised inclusion of the dancers from day one—not later—so that they had some ownership of the process. Perhaps some of the problems that have subsequently been recorded might have been overcome had the dancers been included at the first stage of the process.

Jackie Baillie's point is worth broadening out. If Duncan McGhie had listened to the committee's recommendation—which Cathy Peattie will remember well—to include company workers on the selection board, which we have already mentioned this afternoon, we would not be having this discussion. Of course, Mr McGhie stood steadfast against our recommendations, along with one Mr Sam Galbraith.

If I gauge correctly the feeling of the committee, we want to send a less emollient letter that spells out the points that were in the minutes of the company's meeting. We must put those robust points to Mr Graham Berry.

We want an answer and we have not had one.

We now move into private session.

Meeting continued in private until 16:26.