Enterprise and Culture Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Official Report 278KB pdf

---

Arts in the Community

Item 3 concerns arts in the community. The committee has to consider the Scottish Executive's response to our first report of 2005, "Report on Arts in the Community". A copy of the response from Patricia Ferguson has been circulated and at least two members have specific points to raise.

Page 5 of the Executive's response, which is attached to the minister's letter, mentions that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy is collecting information about local authority expenditure on culture and leisure. My concern is that CIPFA's information is always published 18 months after collection, because it is based on audited figures. I would like us to urge the minister to find some more up-to-date, interim data so that we get the information more quickly and so that it can be used for planning.

Do we agree to write to the minister along those lines?

Members indicated agreement.

I realise that, at this stage in the process, we cannot enter into a protracted exchange with the Executive and I welcome much of its response—it is worth highlighting the fact that the minister's letter records her

"appreciation for the choice of subject matter and for the helpful contribution the Report makes".

However, in a similar spirit of constructiveness—or something—I point out that, on one area, we are in real danger of missing an opportunity. I refer to monitoring and evaluation processes. That matter screamed out at us in our work and was very much a part of our recommendations, but what the minister sets out in response to our findings and recommendations on monitoring and evaluation is the antithesis of what we sought. It is more of the same—top-down processes, guidance and toolkits, monitoring and measuring—rather than a commitment to put in place something that fosters creativity and adopts a lighter touch.

I will not labour the point beyond that, but I have serious concerns with the response on monitoring and evaluation, which, rather than capturing the sentiments that the minister shared with us when we discussed the issue with her, feels like it has come from the system and from officials.

I suggest that we include that point in our letter to the minister. However, we should bear in mind the fact that, some time in the autumn, we will, I presume, want to discuss the Cultural Commission's report. If the issue has not been rectified by then, that might be an opportunity to raise it with the minister.

There are a number of points on which the Executive's response is simply to say, "This is within the Cultural Commission's remit and we await its report with interest." Therefore, we should revisit the matter soon after the summer recess to put the Executive's response together with what the Cultural Commission has had to say so that we have a clearer idea of the Executive's view on our recommendations.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.