Creative Scotland
We now move to our first item of business, which is a statement by Michael Russell on Creative Scotland. As always, the minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
I understand that the condolences and concerns of the Parliament about the tragedy yesterday will be expressed later this morning.
As members know well, the level of debate about this Government's intention to establish Creative Scotland is significant, and has been intense. That is to be welcomed. Open dialogue about state support for the arts—not only on the what and the why, but on the how—is central to a modern democracy. However, there is a moment when the talking has to stop: a moment when the focus switches from structures to substance. After a decade of debate in Scotland, I believe that such a moment has come.
Scotland's artists are key contributors to the Scotland of ideas that we all should seek. They help us to frame the wider questions about what we want to be and how we can achieve our aims. As two of our artists, Alexander Moffat and Alan Riach, observed recently:
"All art … represents and interprets the world. It resists the numbing of the senses, it helps us to live more fully, engaged with the world and critical of it."
For me, that is just the type of creativity that I want to see in Scotland.
There should be no doubt about this Government's continuing commitment to artists and creators of all kinds. The resources that are being made available have been increased. In our approach to structures, we have made it clear that we want to secure a body that is fit for purpose and is able to support, sustain, develop and underpin Scotland's creativity. That body will be the new Creative Scotland.
I am very heartened by the high quality of the work that has been, and is being, done to establish Creative Scotland. I refer to my predecessor, Linda Fabiani; the transition board, which was led by Ewan Brown; the existing joint board, which was led by Richard Holloway; the two chief executives of the existing organisations, Jim Tough and Ken Hay; and the people who work in those organisations whom I have met over the past couple of weeks. The wider arts and creative community—for example, as expressed through the cross-party group on culture and media, with which I met last night—is also deeply engaged. I am particularly pleased that the transition board now has a transition director working with it: I welcome Richard Smith to that role.
Creative Scotland will come into being in the first half of next year—subject, of course, to the final decision of Parliament. However, in order for it to be much more than the sum of its parts, and for it to be the living, dynamic, forward looking, informed and supportive organisation that it must be, it will need more than just parliamentary approval. All the people I have mentioned are needed at this time and all must be part of the process of change. We must engage their enthusiasm, learn from their experience and keep them fully informed of the bigger picture. That is what I intend to do.
Of course, paramount in the decision making process is the Scottish Parliament. It is therefore to Parliament that I want to outline the final details of the cost of establishing Creative Scotland. I am making this statement not only because I recognise the continuing high degree of interest in the issue, but because I want the debate on Creative Scotland to be based on fact, not on speculation.
The context in which Creative Scotland will be established is that this Government wishes to expand access both to funding for the arts and culture and to participation in the arts and culture. For that reason, we have increased by £33.6 million the money that is being made available for culture in the plans for this spending review period, which is a 14 per cent increase in cash terms. Although we want that type of support to continue, I should enter an early caveat. In common with all other areas of Government, we may need to review our plans for 2010-11 in the light of the heavy cuts that the United Kingdom Government is to impose on the Scottish block grant in that year. I have already intimated such concern to the national companies and the national institutions. I will continue to keep the matter under revue.
Whatever the financial situation, the establishment of Creative Scotland requires to be paid for; such a task could never have been undertaken at zero cost. This is not just a transition; it is a transformation. It has involved taking the best from both the current organisations, in which there has been much to praise, and creating a unified organisation that has skilled and confident leadership from the sector's best. In so doing, we want to create a new force that will set a national—and, who knows?—an international standard as a vibrant and forward-thinking organisation.
After detailed work from the two current bodies and with the transition board and the Government, my expectation is that the total cost of the transformation will be just over £3.3 million. I am publishing today a summary of the figure and I talked this morning about the costs to the relevant trade unions, which marked the start of a detailed period of consultation of the unions before we present the figures to Parliament in the financial memorandum to the proposed public services reform bill. That £3.3 million represents our rigorous current best estimate of the full costs that will arise from transition. In essence, it is the establishment cost for a new body and we should see it in that positive light.
For completeness, I say that the figures that we are publishing today include two footnotes on a couple of other costs that do not arise from transition, but which should be noted. The first is a one-off payment that may be required to be made to the pension provider of Scottish Screen as part of pension arrangements for Creative Scotland after vesting. The second may arise from the expectation that Creative Scotland will not have charitable status—indeed, it would never have had that, even under the previous Government's plans. However, I intend to discuss that directly with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator before a final decision takes effect.
I hope that this major investment will result in a major return. I expect the skilled leadership of Creative Scotland to set up a lean and intelligent system that will help its staff to help Scotland's creativity in the wider sense. In funding the arts, the Government intends that the money is for just that: for the arts, by means of supporting artists. Consequently, although artists and creators will benefit from the investment, I confirm that they will not pay for it from grants that are intended for their support and assistance. Let me say unequivocally, therefore, that the cost of setting up Creative Scotland will not come from front-line grants to artists, whether they are existing grants administered by the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen, or new initiatives such as the extra £5 million over 2009-10 and 2010-11 for the innovation fund.
The Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen have already made provision for costs that have been incurred to date during 2007-08 and 2008-09. Those figures are included in the costs summary that I am publishing today. The Government will meet the remaining transformation costs from within my portfolio budgets. That will be challenging, but it is the right thing to do.
Since I took over this portfolio six weeks ago, I have met a wide range of arts and cultural bodies, and many individuals in the sector. I have said to all of them that I do not regard it as being the job of the Government, still less as being that of a Government minister, to define what should or should not receive money. I respect and understand the arm's-length principle. However, I believe that we need to be honest about what that principle means. It is not just a principle that stops interference in detail, but one that insists on Government playing a key role in defining the structures, setting the broad parameters and then devolving the key day-to-day decision making.
In short, Government must set the overall context within which our arts and culture can thrive. For me, a successful context means four things: encouraging and sustaining artists and creators of all kinds; ensuring that their work is accessible to all; ensuring that as many people as possible can participate in creative activities; and extending and increasing the wider benefits of arts and culture, including their contribution to the promotion and development of our unique national culture and its place in the wider international sphere. Those aims will be enshrined in the legislation that will set up Creative Scotland. The implementation will be the fruit of the national investment that I have outlined.
This is not just about process, however. While work continues on establishing Creative Scotland—work that will also come to fruition when Parliament gets an opportunity to shape that organisation through modern legislation—much good work in the arts continues. I want to draw attention to some of that now. First, members will recall that some weeks ago I made a promise to expand the board of the transition company. The first new appointment has just been made and I am very happy to welcome broadcaster and cultural commentator and figure, Sheena McDonald, to the organisation. She attended her first meeting last week. One more appointment remains to be made.
Secondly, members will know that I have a particularly strong interest in ensuring that Gaelic is at the forefront of how we present our national story. I am pleased, therefore, to be able to announce today that Gaelic will be integral to the work of Creative Scotland and that funding has been agreed for the appointment of a specialist arts officer to implement the Gaelic arts strategy within the context of Creative Scotland.
Thirdly, I am very mindful that Scotland's creative industries sector makes a huge cultural and economic impact: it contributes over £5 billion in turnover and supports 60,000 jobs. We have already announced the framework agreement, and I am pleased to be able to tell members that, last Tuesday, Councillor Harry McGuigan of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and I jointly chaired the first meeting of a short-life group to put flesh on the bones of that framework. I look forward to a new partnership in support of the creative industries that will fully involve Creative Scotland and COSLA as lead players.
Fourthly, I confirm that the emerging structure of Creative Scotland, which is very much a work in progress, will continue to have a sectoral and subject focus. This issue has concerned many people who are involved in all the arts and creative industries, and who have been worried that experience within the organisations might be lost and that inappropriate models might be used to replace successful support structures. I am determined that we will build on what is good and I regard this approach as having succeeded. Certainly, it needs to be modernised and developed, so I look forward to some new thinking about how it might evolve. In addition, I have asked Ewan Brown and the transition board to let me have proposals for projects—actual projects under Creative Scotland—which can be developed using the innovation fund that we announced last year.
However, there are sectors in which progress has not been made and where there are shortfalls between ambition and policy. Two sectors in particular have given me cause for concern. In one—the traditional arts—we have already put in place a working group led by David Francis to recommend the best national arrangements to support and develop this vital area of interest. The conclusions of that group will feed into Creative Scotland and inform final decision making about the issue.
I believe that literature is another area in which we are, in terms of national policy, underachieving. Accordingly, I can announce that I have established a similar working group, to be led by the literary editor of The Herald, Rosemary Goring, which will include writers, publishers and academics. I want that group to review what we are doing and to make radical recommendations about what we should do as a nation to support existing talent, promote new talent and encourage books that are made in Scotland, as well as those who publish and sell them. This group will inform emerging policy within Creative Scotland and will advise me and the chairman of Creative Scotland, Ewan Brown.
I hope that I have put some more flesh on the bones of Creative Scotland. Much remains to do, and I welcome again the input of all those who are joining us, Ewan Brown and his colleagues in making the idea a reality. Creative Scotland will happen: it is time that it happened. We can thereafter devote our national energy and our national resource to the important task of encouraging artists, widening access to their art and securing participation in the arts, and by so doing, making our national culture deeper, richer and more connected to the world.
As I intimated earlier, the minister will now take questions. It will be helpful if members who wish to ask questions would press their request-to-speak buttons. I come first to Pauline McNeill.
First, I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, to members and to the minister for my being late. I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
Of course, we welcome the long-awaited chance to hear clarification of some of the detail on Creative Scotland and its costs. The policy has caused serious concern and upset in the artistic community. The lack of clarity about finance and the detail of the plans for the organisation has sent out mixed messages and has led to suspicion. I agree with the minister that it is time to dispel that suspicion not just in the interests of those who will depend on the new body for their livelihood, but in the interests of Scotland. Labour therefore welcomes the clarity on the transitional costs that the minister has given this morning. We will have detailed questions on that.
I also welcome the setting up of the working group on literature. However, the minister has an opportunity today to give real answers on the detail of the policy. I have some questions that I hope are clear and on which I hope I can get clear answers from the minister. First, on the funding of Creative Scotland, the minister claims that there has been a 14 per cent increase in cash terms: however, that is a stand-still budget in real terms. Even if it was not, Creative Scotland will expand its role. How will the expansion of what Creative Scotland will do be funded? Clearly, there is a gap.
Secondly, on the inclusion of the creative industries, the minister's predecessor announced that the new body would give specialist advice to the creative industries, which I support. She also said that the budget for that would transfer from Scottish Enterprise to Creative Scotland. Is that still the case? Can the minister clarify today whether those funds will transfer from Scottish Enterprise? Does the minister expect that the new body will recruit the types of skills that are needed to provide the specialist advice for the creative industries?
Thirdly, on Scottish Screen, I am sure that the minister will agree that it is a successful brand that has attracted important work to Scotland. Can the minister provide any detail on whether the Scottish Screen brand will be retained in any shape or form? Will Scottish Screen's address still be in Glasgow?
Fourthly, on the new model for grants and loans, many artists are worried about the idea that they might have to seek a loan rather than a grant. Can the minister provide some clarity, at least on what he expects Creative Scotland to do on that? For example, will artists who currently enjoy grants be expected to apply for loans? If the minister would provide some clarity around some of those questions today, I believe that we can put the Creative Scotland policy back on track.
I am grateful to Pauline McNeill for her questions, which are similar to questions that I have been answering from the staff of the organisations and the artists involved. I am happy to provide comprehensive answers to them now, although I will be brief because I am conscious of the time.
First, there has been an increase in cultural funding of 14 per cent over the current spending review period—that is a reality. However, we must be accurate about what we are talking about. I was asked the question last night at the cross-party group on culture and media. The two previous organisations have existing responsibilities in dealing with the sectors and are coming together in a new and dynamic body. There is no expanded role sectorally in that regard—all those concerns already exist. However, the resources of the two organisations will be more focused and will be used more. It is simply not true that there is some vastly increased number of specialities; therefore, there is no funding gap.
An enormous resource is not being made available to anybody at this stage. I have made it absolutely clear that the purpose of the exercise is to ensure that we get more bang for our buck—I have said that openly for the past six weeks. We want to ensure that more money is made available to the sector. That will be the case at the end of this process not just because there has been an increase in funding through the spending review, but because the new organisation will focus its resources on its job. I expect the new organisation to be able to do more, and I am sure that that will be the case.
Secondly, the role of Scottish Enterprise in the creative industries is crucial. Pauline McNeill knows that we are building on the framework arrangement, which has been announced to Parliament and with which members are familiar. It will take the ability and resource of a range of bodies and apply them to the creative industries, with Creative Scotland undoubtedly playing a lead role. COSLA also has a role to play. I was pleased that Jack Perry, of Scottish Enterprise, appeared at the first meeting of the short-life working group and was deeply involved.
Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland and the creative industries themselves are also involved in ensuring that all the resources are focused on the task in hand. I will give an example: the resources of the business gateway are not allocated discretely to culture, but can assist many small and medium-sized enterprises in their cultural endeavour. There is therefore a virtuous circle in ensuring that we do things that way. I think that it is going to work. I have also said publicly that I will keep the closest eye on the performance of the enterprise companies—in particular, to ensure that they honour the commitments that they have made.
Thirdly, of course, there is a fondness for Scottish Screen, and its importance is recognised. I am sure that, in some way, the work that it does will continue to appear under that brand. However, the really important prize is the new brand of Creative Scotland. Creative Scotland should, will and must be a highly successful and recognised brand, and all our efforts should go into making it so while not looking backwards, but forwards.
On the location of the body, my predecessor made it clear that there would be substantial problems in siting the new body at a single location, not least of which are the existing lease commitments of the Scottish Arts Council. I remain wedded to the policy that my predecessor announced, which is that the costs of changing its location at present could not be borne. Nevertheless, it is obvious that we need to develop a new culture within Creative Scotland to bring the bodies together. Mr Macintosh, who is sitting on the Labour front bench, was part of the inquiry into the exams debacle in 2000. One of the problems at that time was the fact that there were two bodies—one in the west and one in the east—that did not share a single culture, which created a problem for their performance. I am determined that the cultural bodies should learn from that experience and develop a new shared culture.
Finally, on grants and loans, I am absolutely certain that the good support that exists will continue. Nevertheless, I want to ensure that the way in which we provide that support in Scotland is modernised. That will be the job of Creative Scotland 2009. There is no reason for anybody who is being supported at the moment to have any fears about the way in which they will be supported in the future. In fact, our proposals will improve the way in which people are supported.
I am grateful to the minister for making copies of his statement available earlier this morning. This is clearly not a happy day for the Government. Although I welcome the minister's attempts at clarification of Government policy, no amount of slamming of stable doors after expensive horses have bolted can disguise the fact that the botched delivery of Creative Scotland has achieved the seemingly impossible—it has united all sectors of the Scottish arts community in condemnation of the Government.
The minister assures us that not a penny of the huge £3.3 million transition costs will be passed on to the arts sector; however, he has failed to explain why those transition costs are necessary at all. His predecessor repeatedly assured Parliament that the setting up of Creative Scotland would not require new legislation. Why then, when the previous bill collapsed, did the Government not cut its losses and put in place immediately the nuts and bolts of the new organisation? The minister tells us that Creative Scotland will be leaner and fitter, but he admits that the Scottish Arts Council has a lease on its Edinburgh offices that runs until 2014 and that Scottish Screen has a similar lease in Blythswood Street, Glasgow. Is there any real point in amalgamating the two organisations if they cannot physically be brought together in the one place?
Finally, is the minister yet able to tell us which will be the lead body in Scottish arts funding? If, as seems to be the case, Creative Scotland's role will be largely advisory, with the final say on budgets reserved to Scottish Enterprise, will those who are seeking funding not just cut out the middle man and go directly to the latter body?
I regret the tone that Mr Brocklebank has adopted. I would have thought that his interests in the matter would have led him to rejoice at this happy day on which we have clarity at last. I know that Mr Brocklebank is a man who is capable of rejoicing, so let me encourage him to do so. Perhaps he simply got out of the wrong side of his bed this morning. The reality is that there was considerable clarity in the statement, which I am happy to have provided. The statement was, indeed, circulated to the party spokespeople, including Mr Brocklebank, earlier, so he has had time to mull it over and see how clear it is.
I know that Mr Brocklebank has taken a particular interest in Scottish Enterprise's funding of the creative industries. The role that Creative Scotland will have in the process is absolutely clear: Creative Scotland is the lead organisation. However, wonderfully—this is another reason to be jolly—it is also able to open the door to lots of additional money. I have illustrated how help from the business gateway network can come into play, and there are lots of other opportunities. The problem has never been the resource; it has been the perceived difficulty of accessing that resource. Creative Scotland will open the door to that resource. It will free up the process and will be a lead partner in the framework agreement, as Mr Brocklebank knows. In all those circumstances, things will be better for the creative industries, rather than worse. Mr Brocklebank should welcome that.
I regret—as everybody regrets—the fact that the lease on the Scottish Arts Council premises is as it is; however, it is important to accept the reality of the situation. I would have thought that the Conservatives would be rather relieved that I have taken a pragmatic view of the matter and that, instead of spending more taxpayers' money, I am ensuring that we get the maximum bangs for our buck. I would have thought that Mr Brocklebank would be happy about that.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
Having lost a bill, a board member and a minister, it is time for the Government to take action. The creative industries have suffered from continued uncertainty over the future of Creative Scotland, so I welcome the progress that is being made at last. I welcome the details about the transition costs, but I ask the minister to accept that it was not based on transition costs that the financial resolution was rejected last June. The problem at that time was the lack of clarity about who among Creative Scotland, the enterprise agencies, the business gateway network and Skills Development Scotland would be responsible for what, and the lack of detail about where the finances for the creative industries would lie.
I welcome the framework agreement, which is finally starting to clarify who will do what, although I am surprised that there is no specific reference to the role of Skills Development Scotland in the agreement. I would like an assurance from the minister that the short-life working group that is chaired by Councillor Harry McGuigan will produce clear proposals to ensure that funding for the creative industries will match the responsibilities. In particular, the funding for Creative Scotland should reflect the additional responsibilities that that body will have.
If there were to be additional responsibilities, I would warm to Mr Smith's final point. However, what we will have is a new, leaner, fitter and more focused organisation, and the resources that we are talking about will be applied in that way.
I am glad that Mr Smith has welcomed the short-life working group. It is important that we put flesh on the bones of the framework agreement, although the framework agreement is a big step forward. Skills Development Scotland is part of the group. Yesterday, I met Skillset and discussed its involvement. In addition, individual practitioners will be involved in the group. Out of that group will come great clarity about how the system will operate, and I am impressed by the commitment of all parties to it.
I am long enough in the tooth in politics to know that, even when there is no reason to complain, the Opposition has to complain. I have done it myself.
Yes—you have.
Lord Foulkes is shouting from a sedentary position. He is a past master at making something out of nothing, or, should I say, at making nothing out of something?
It is important to welcome the clarity that has been provided and to acknowledge that considerable work is being done to talk to, listen to and learn from the experience of—as I said in my statement—the widest creative community. I hope that the Opposition spokespeople—indeed, the whole Parliament—will not only welcome that work, but will become part of it. I was happy to invite the Opposition spokespeople to the event at the Traverse Theatre in February, and I make a commitment that I am happy to continue to involve Opposition spokespeople in the process so that we can get out of it something that not only the Government, but Parliament is glad about.
We have already come to the end of the time that was allocated for our first item of business, but there is some flexibility, as the following debate is undersubscribed. I am keen to get back benchers in, but I beg members to ask one short question, which should be followed by one short answer.
As a graduate of the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama and as someone who has an interest in, and experience of, the arts, I am delighted that Creative Scotland will continue with the sectoral and subject approach, and I am confident that most people in the arts will be relieved to hear that. Will the minister give us a little more insight into why he believes the sectoral approach is the best way forward for the arts?
By and large, that approach has worked in most, although not all, areas. I have talked about a couple of areas in which it has not. I do not want to tie the hands of Creative Scotland 2009 because it should have flexibility and it should consider a modern version of doing things, but the approach means bringing expertise to bear and ensuring that that expertise encourages best practice.
In New York on Friday afternoon, I shall meet RSAMD graduates who will take part in the Scotland week events. I shall take Anne McLaughlin's good wishes to her former colleagues.
I welcome the new proposals for Creative Scotland and am aware of the minister's strong interest in Gaelic. However, I am particularly disappointed that, in the year of homecoming, the Scots language does not have equal status. Will the minister reconsider that matter or say why the Scots language is not being treated the same?
I wish to treat the Scots language in the same way. Although I have made an announcement about a Gaelic officer, I am keen to discuss with all the relevant parties how we can integrate Scots into Creative Scotland.
I think that Cathy Peattie is aware that I told the cross-party group on culture and media last night that at the British-Irish Council summit on minority languages, I opened my contribution in Gaelic and closed it in Scots. I hope that we all recognise that we have a three-voice nation and that we should celebrate all three voices.
The minister will acknowledge that there has still not been an announcement on the chief executive of Creative Scotland. In his statement, the minister mentioned that a further appointment has still to be made to the transition board. Does he agree that such circumstances do not help to dispel the disquiet in circles about the leadership of Creative Scotland? Can he confirm when he expects those appointments to be made?
I do not agree with Elizabeth Smith. A natural process is taking place. The transition board is prioritising its work, and the chief executive will be appointed in line with the priorities that the transition board sets. I am happy to support it in that process.
I am sure that the existing leadership in the organisations is effective. Ewan Brown is providing the leadership of the transition process, Richard Smith is now working as the transition director, and the new chief executive will be appointed at the right time. I am sure that applications from all over the place—including applications from furth of Scotland—will be considered.
The costings that the minister has provided for the set-up of Creative Scotland include more than £1 million for voluntary early severance. Will he give details about potential job losses and the other issues that affect staff, and further details about the discussions that he has already had with the trade unions?
Yes. The costs include £1.1 million: half is for 2009-10 and half is for 2010-11. I met the trade unions and the staff of the Scottish Arts Council this morning, and I met the staff of Scottish Screen last week. I intend to follow best practice, and Ewan Brown has echoed that. There will be a voluntary early severance scheme and no compulsory redundancies. We hope that the voluntary early severance scheme will be the best that it can be.
The process will be difficult for the staff. On Tuesday, I said to the staff of the Scottish Arts Council that my career pattern has not had a straight-line trajectory and that I therefore know about how people suffer in such circumstances. The process is genuinely difficult, and we will do everything to ensure that it is made as painless as possible, although it cannot be completely painless. We will keep close contact with the trade unions. We had a positive discussion this morning. Ewan Brown will now engage in detailed discussions with the trade unions to ensure that we progress matters in the best possible way.
The minister will not be surprised to hear that, as convener of the Parliament's art advisory group, I am more than keenly aware that painters and sculptors in particular in Scotland feel rather left out of the process. He will have received an open letter from the Scottish Artists Union. What will be the flavour of his reply to that letter?
It will be warm, inclusive and positive, and it will show that I am determined that every part of the arts community in Scotland feels involved in the process. Such issues are raised in every meeting. It is absolutely no part of my intention to favour one artistic group at the expense of another or to prefer one artistic group or discipline over another. Everybody must share in the process, and I am determined that everybody will do so. I hope that people will talk directly to me, Ewan Brown or others about their worries and concerns rather than build them up without having discussions with us. I am determined that visual artists remain an important part of our arts infrastructure in Scotland. I will be positive about that matter and am happy to meet the Scottish Artists Union to confirm that.
What role does the minister envisage for Creative Scotland in delivering a lasting arts legacy for the people of Glasgow following the 2014 Commonwealth games in the city?
As Creative Scotland will be a key partner, we obviously want to ensure that we work in Glasgow as elsewhere. The legacy of the games will be important for Scotland as a whole. In December 2008, the Government published the interim legacy plan, which set out our thinking on turning ideas and aspirations into action. Since then, the Government has worked with a wide range of partners, including the Scottish Arts Council, to develop a legacy plan for Scotland. The evolving plan will be published in the summer, and the established mechanisms for partnership working will mean that everyone will have a part. That means that, when the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen become Creative Scotland, Creative Scotland will have a part too.
Will the minister provide clarification on the summary of costs that was published with his statement today? I refer to the £1.1 million for voluntary severance. How many individuals does the minister expect to go? How many of those positions will the organisation retain? How much of the £75,000 that has been identified for rebranding and leases will be spent on rebranding? Is the minister confident that that money will be sufficient to ensure that the brand is well known?
I am keen that we spend as little as possible on branding, but I am equally keen that the brand is well known. We have to strike the right balance.
The member is right to raise the issue. We should be circumspect, but we should also ensure that people understand the importance of Creative Scotland, which will happen if Creative Scotland is an effective organisation that does good things.
I am sure that, with her long experience of trade union matters, the member recognises that it is entirely proper that the trade unions and Creative Scotland discuss details in a proper negotiating forum. I have set out the context for that and confirmed the key issues. The primary and overriding point is that there will be no compulsory redundancies. With the resources set and the discussions undertaken, I hope that the process will be completed in an orderly and proper fashion. It is expected that there will be two rounds—one in the coming financial year and one in the financial year thereafter—during which numbers will be focused on. We are talking about the minimum number of redundancies possible and ensuring that we get the best organisation that we possibly can.
Bidh saoghal na Gàidhlig gu math toilichte leis an naidheachd gum bi oifigear ealain Gàidhlig ùr ann. Ciamar a bhios an neach seo ag obair leis na sgoiltean agus saoghal an fhoghlaim? Mòran taing.
The world of Gaelic will be very pleased by the news that there is to be a Gaelic arts officer. How will that post work with the schools and the world of education? Thank you.
As my Gaelic progresses, I will answer Alasdair Allan's questions directly in Gaelic. However, as he used to be my Gaelic tutor, I am a bit nervous that he—
Oh, go on.
Oh no. I assure members that Alasdair Allan is far better than I am—in every way, I am sure.
It is necessary that we make links between education and Gaelic. The officer in question will focus on Gaelic arts, but, as the member knows, Gaelic arts are integral to education. Therefore, the post will have an impact on education. I want to ensure that Gaelic, Scots and other cultural traditions in Scotland are well represented. As part of that process, art will always be involved in education.
Ken Macintosh has the final question.
Mòran taing, Presiding Officer.
The proposals have undergone many transformations. In light of the minister's welcome agreement to a meeting with the Scottish Artists Union, what are his plans to consult the artistic community more widely on the content of the Creative Scotland bill and to rebuild the support that his Administration has lost?
I must admit that I am slightly surprised by all these suggestions that there are revolting masses of people outside who are ready to stone me.
They are not just outside.
The question whether people in the chamber are revolting I leave to the judgment of members of the public.
Over the past six weeks, I have had the most positive discussions with a large number of groups and individuals. Those discussions have been vigorous and direct, certainly, but they have also been positive. I am absolutely certain that we have to ensure that ownership of the process does not lie simply with me or with the chamber but with the artistic community, in its widest definition.
In my statement, I made it clear that the key issue is the purpose of Creative Scotland. I outlined what I think that purpose should be, and that will be interpreted in the legislation.
To be honest, I do not think that anybody in the artistic community is in any doubt about the fact that Creative Scotland is happening. We should make it happen, and do so collaboratively. I would welcome Mr Macintosh's participation—that is not something that I often say.
I hope that front benchers and back benchers in every party in the chamber will be constructive in making Creative Scotland happen. It will happen best if it happens collaboratively, in a way that involves not just members in the chamber, but people throughout Scotland.
I am grateful to members and the minister for ensuring that everybody who wanted to ask a question was able to do so.