Official Report 761KB pdf
Good morning, and a warm welcome to the 32nd meeting in 2025 of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. Agenda item 1 is to take evidence on an independent review of Creative Scotland, and we are joined by Angela Leitch, chair of the review, and Stuart Currie, vice-chair of the review. I warmly welcome you both and I invite Angela Leitch to make an opening statement.
Thank you to the committee for inviting us to speak about the review and explain further the contents of the report. I thank the more than 450 people who took part in the review process—people took time to speak to us in person and online, and they submitted lots of evidence, which we have taken into account.
We heard from individuals and organisations that were funded and not funded by Creative Scotland. We heard from Creative Scotland staff and board members, trade unions and many other interested parties. That engagement was supported by the significant wealth of existing data and evidence that exists. From the outset, I committed to producing a report that was based on evidence. The report is based on what we heard and what we read over the review period.
The recommendations in the report relate to Creative Scotland as set out in the remit that was agreed by the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture earlier this year. I concluded that there is strong support for a national body for the arts, culture and creative sector. Creative Scotland’s remit remains relevant and flexible enough to carry out all the body’s functions. However, improvements are required so that Creative Scotland can fulfil its remit across creative industries and ensure that support is aligned with the whole breadth of the sector’s needs.
I reflected the views that were expressed about a need for greater scrutiny by the Creative Scotland board, a need for the organisation to be visible across Scotland and a need for it to collaborate more internationally. My report is divided into five themes, and I have broadly covered the first theme, which is purpose and remit. I will say a few words about the other areas before passing back to you, convener.
On governance, I heard that Creative Scotland needs to set out a clearer long-term strategy that is worked up with partners and aligned with views from across the sector. The board should also have a greater focus on transparency, strategic challenge and scrutiny of performance.
I have heard a lot about the success of Screen Scotland, but we have also heard about the specific challenges that the screen sector is facing. Our recommendations are that Screen Scotland should have greater support to have a “clearer sense of identity” and that there should be greater delegation of decision making.
The report’s third theme is performance. We heard about the significant amount of information that Creative Scotland requires from organisations that it funds. Although it is right and proper to have effective monitoring of public funding, the process should be more streamlined, automated and proportionate.
The fourth section covers finance and distribution of funding. The general perception is that that is Creative Scotland’s primary role. Despite that, improvements are necessary. Creative Scotland needs to develop more medium and longer-term financial plans to support strategic decision making, and its approach needs to be informed by data intelligence, including local intelligence. Scotland is also the only nation in the United Kingdom that does not have a dedicated capital fund specifically for the culture sector, and I recommend considering that further.
The final theme in the report is relationships and partnerships. Many expressed the view that, outwith the central belt, Creative Scotland appears distant and impersonal. Greater co-operation with others, including national and regional bodies, would strengthen delivery for the whole sector and across the whole of Scotland.
The report has been presented to the cabinet secretary, who will consider next steps. I am happy to answer questions and expand further on the report.
That is very welcome. Thank you to both of you and your team for the work that has been done to produce the report.
Quite a few sections of the report mention transparency and governance, which the committee has struggled with on occasion. I would like to dig a little more into how further transparency could improve the relationship with the committee and the relationship with the sector in general.
In general, the sector was at pains to express how much need there is for greater openness from Creative Scotland. In the report, we recommend that that could be achieved in a number of ways. Board meetings could be held at least partly in public. Before meetings take place, agendas could be published online, as is done in many other public bodies. Any private items could be clearly marked to show why they are regarded as being important, confidential, sensitive or whatever the criteria may be. We suggest that that should be set out in a clear governance framework.
Another element of transparency that would help the committee is more clarity on the criteria for decision making, particularly on funding. That would greatly enhance people’s understanding of why some people received funding and others did not.
In common with bodies in other parts of the UK, Creative Scotland uses panels for decision making on funding. We make particular mention of the importance of having clear criteria for those panels that are aligned to a clearer strategic plan that sets out the organisation’s longer-term objectives. That would allow the committee and the sector to understand where Creative Scotland will focus its energies, why that is necessary and how that will be resourced accordingly.
This is an example, not a suggestion, but let us take the Scottish Government’s view on Scottish languages—Scots and Gaelic. Should a strategy be built more around Government priorities, so that the overall outcome of achieving, say, the wellbeing society is met?
Creative Scotland is a public body that is funded, as least in part, by the Scottish Government. Any public organisation or non-departmental public body needs to have regard to the programme for government and be explicit in its strategic direction about the elements through which it will support the achievement or furtherance of those goals.
We mention in the report the fact that Creative Scotland’s goals are more akin to principles. Being clearer about the organisation’s true objectives in order to enhance, grow and sustain the development of the sector would enhance the organisation’s effectiveness. That would make it clearer to the sector, the Government and other partners that the organisation might lean into how it can be more supportive of their aims.
You have said that Creative Scotland should be bolder in some of its approaches. We have seen some reputational damage to Creative Scotland in the past when it has chosen to support controversial projects and when the decision making about how such projects were funded has not been clear to the committee. Is there pressure on Creative Scotland not to be bold in the creative arts that it is supporting, given that scrutiny? What exactly do you mean by Creative Scotland being bolder in its approach?
The reference to being bold basically stems from the need for Creative Scotland to be clear about what it wants to achieve with the evidence that it gathers from organisations across the country, whether or not they are funded. The organisation has greater opportunity to gather data and evidence from parts of the culture sector that it does not fund so that it identifies areas and priorities that would most benefit from the funding, advocacy or development work that a national body such as Creative Scotland could offer.
We do not mention decisions specifically, because the subject was not mentioned terribly often, to be honest. However, we mention transparency and clarity about objectives and clarity of criteria. Being bold relates to the fact that the sector, which is broad, is passionate. People across the board are passionate about what they do, but Creative Scotland needs to take a bold decision to say, “These are the priorities that we will focus on over the next period,” which means that others will be provided with fewer opportunities and less resource. That is quite bold.
Creative Scotland has attempted to support the sector in the broadest sense imaginable. We heard that now is the time to think about the areas in which growth could be stimulated and sustainability could be enhanced.
Thank you. I will open up the session to committee members.
Good morning. I have a few questions. During your inquiry, did you meet the board as a whole?
Yes, we met the board on two occasions, and I also met the chair of the board on a couple of occasions.
You met the board as a group; why did you think that that was important?
I thought that it was important to hear what the issues were from their perspective. In taking an evidence-based view of the needs of the sector and how Creative Scotland or a national body could be strengthened, it was important to hear from board members where they felt the shortcomings were. That is what we heard from them, on occasion.
Did you receive further information from them or from other people within Creative Scotland on behalf of the board?
Creative Scotland was really co-operative in following up any inquiries for further information. As I said to the convener, the first port of call was its website to look at what information was held there, what type of research it had done and so on. When we could not find something, and navigating the website was not straightforward, we went back to Creative Scotland and it supplied us with board minutes and papers that we asked for and such like.
So there was information directly from Creative Scotland and also those two face-to-face meetings, at least.
Yes.
Okay. You talked about the scrutiny of Creative Scotland by the board, but there is nothing in the inquiry report on the scrutiny of the board by the Government—obviously, that is because you were not tasked with looking into that. Do you think that that should have been included? We have seen, within other parts of the cultural sector, issues in the relationship between the Government and the boards of bodies. Do you think that such scrutiny should or could have been included?
08:45
There is a recommendation for the Government and Creative Scotland on strengthening the work between the sponsorship team and Creative Scotland. That is not to say, from what we heard, that it is not a constructive relationship just now. However, I think that Creative Scotland, using its data and intelligence, could work further with the sponsorship team to demonstrate the needs of the sector and the sponsorship team then, working with politicians, could evidence both the work that Creative Scotland is doing and could do in the future.
On the body being held to account, as I understand it in governance terms, it is for the cabinet secretary to be assured of the work that it is undertaking and the work with the sponsorship team. We spoke to the sponsorship team as well as Creative Scotland and were told that they met on a regular basis and were appraised of the work of the body.
This issue has come up with Historic Environment Scotland: there is a relationship between officials and the board but not always between the cabinet secretary directly and the board. Did you meet with the cabinet secretary about this report and about the inquiry and its terms when it was set up?
I met the cabinet secretary when we had agreed our remit. In our appointment letters, there were three areas that we were asked to look at. When Stuart Currie and I considered that, and following our initial conversations with those in the sector and drawing on our experience of governance and leadership, those areas were expanded. I explained that to the cabinet secretary and then I met the cabinet secretary to explain the report. Those were the two conversations that we had—it was information giving.
Okay, thanks. I will maybe come back to that later.
I want to ask about regionality and how Creative Scotland delivers across the country. Do you have any more to say on that? I represent the Highlands and Islands and remote communities that sometimes feel a long way away from everywhere. How do you think Creative Scotland can improve how it delivers for communities like ours?
When we were in the north of Scotland, in Aberdeen, Inverness and Orkney, we heard about the wealth of activity that is undertaken in those parts of Scotland. We were impressed—as is pointed out in the report—by the regional work that goes on there, particularly with Highlands and Islands Enterprise working constructively with a range of other national bodies as well as regional and local organisations. In the report, we recommend that Creative Scotland look at that, as building in some regional structure to its governance would be hugely beneficial.
We also heard that local intelligence could greatly enhance decision making. When we were in the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway, we had a discussion with some of the participants in the engagement sessions on awards for multiyear funding and how those awards could have been enriched—they could have gone further, had Creative Scotland been aware of the wealth of work that was being done in other parts of that geographical area of Scotland. There is definitely a potential for strengthening there.
The other thing that we heard that the sector was keen to have—and we also hear this from other bodies that are not currently funded—was a contact. The lead officer post within Creative Scotland was hugely valued. There has been a change to that model, which I can completely understand: Creative Scotland has moved to a new model because of the number of organisations that have multiyear funding. However, I think that there is still some work to be done on its operating model to make sure that those relationships are clear and effective.
So, the suggestion is that there are more opportunities out there, but Creative Scotland is either not learning about them, or is not able to deliver on them.
I think it is, in part, both. We met around 60 staff in addition to the board and the senior leadership team. I think that the staff felt that they would benefit from being more visible and more engaged with different parts of Scotland. In part, one of the reasons that they have not been able to do that was the focus on multiyear funding, which—understandably—had taken up considerable resources. That may be something that the organisation will address in the months and years to come.
Okay, I will maybe come back to that later. I am conscious of time, convener.
Thank you.
Good morning. You mentioned the board, concerns about the capacity of the board and information not being passed to the board. You mention that there is no transformation plan in the medium term, no core strategy and no clear framework for prioritisation and that this weakens its ability to adapt, lead or respond strategically. Is the current board capable of bringing about the changes that you would like to see in Creative Scotland?
I have no doubt that that is something that the board will address and I have no reason to believe that it could not. There are vacancies on the board at this point and Creative Scotland’s sponsorship team, working with the public appointments office, could think about how to enhance the skill sets that are already there.
Creative Scotland has some remarkable board members who have great experience of the arts. There are some members who have more of a background in business and have business acumen. Creative Scotland should be looking at balancing them out with people that understand good governance, the importance of scrutiny and the importance of options appraisal and business cases. Those skills are important on any board, and I think the vacancies offer an opportunity to augment the skills that the board already has.
What brought about the situation where you observed—at least, it is mentioned—a lack of effective challenge at board level?
I think that there a few areas. I point to multiyear funding. There were three options that were provided to the board on what multiyear funding could look like. The three options were focused on a different percentage increase being allocated from the Government. I take you back to the remit for Creative Scotland as it stands, which is broad and allows it to act on behalf of the totality of the sector, including creative industries, and includes the enhancement of skills within the sector. We could not find anything that suggested that there was a wider appraisal of where the sector would benefit from that increase in funding, where there were gaps and where there might be opportunities. The options were, in our opinion, limited to the enhanced funding that would come from the Government, without thought being given either to different art forms that could benefit, different parts of the sector that could benefit or different parts of Scotland that could benefit.
We talked about the regional approach that we have just commented on. We might have expected development work to have been done in particular areas where artists were particularly keen to develop particular pieces of work. It would be up to Creative Scotland to draw on the wealth of information that it draws upon from funded organisations at this point.
It sounds as though you are describing an organisation that lacks any kind of strategy.
It does have a strategy, but as I said in my earlier comments, the strategy is broad. It tries to support the sector in its totality.
It is all things to all people.
It is very broad and in that respect, Creative Scotland should be using its data and intelligence, leaning into other organisations and looking to see what the true needs of the organisation are and where the sector can be most enhanced. It could support people on a maintenance, if you like, but then consider where it can enhance the sector to grow, develop and thrive. Then it can move on to other priorities over a period of 10 years or so.
Why was there a gap? You note that there is a lot of evidence of information gathering, but not a lot of use of information so there is data gathering as opposed to data leading to informed decision making or a clear strategy—given that what you have described is a broad strategy. There was all this information. It could be information, although at the moment it is just a pile of data. Why was the board almost blind, at times? One of the comments was that the board did not always receive the information and that it needed to scrutinise direction of performance. How did that gap arise?
I think that that particular comment relates to the performance activity. As we mention in the report, we were told that performance monitoring relies upon the annual review, which is published around nine months after the end of the financial year. In the opinion of the sector, that is too late. It is certainly not the practice that I am familiar with in having performance reports that allow both the executive and the non-executive members to take effective action when they see that things need to be addressed or realigned. That is the particular issue that is referred to in the report.
On feedback and the use of evidence and research, I think that Creative Scotland will say that that does happen, but in our analysis of board papers and so on, we could not see that happening on a systematic basis. From that information, it looked as if the board were dependent on the information that was presented to them from the executive.
It appears to keep coming back to leadership; my conclusion from your report and from your evidence this morning is that there has been a lack of leadership from the board. I am happy to be challenged on that because one of the other comments that is in the report is about a defensive culture in the organisation. A number of stakeholders commented on that. Was that what you discovered? Was there a defensive mentality? Was there an unwillingness to address weaknesses?
On the point about leadership, we were focused on the organisation and how it was performing and so on. The feedback that we have had demonstrated that the sector is hugely grateful for the role that Creative Scotland has played in securing additional funding through the multiyear funding programme, so I think that that has to be stated. Having said that, there are other areas—development and advocacy in particular—that the sector feels need to be strengthened.
I also think that Creative Scotland has been consumed by multiyear funding for the past few years. I understand that it started a consultation on how that funding might be allocated in 2020 and, since then, through the pandemic and up until last year when it finally made the three-year awards, the issue has taken up a huge amount of time across the organisation. That may have limited its opportunities to look more broadly and at other areas.
I have a couple of final points, which pick up from Jamie Halcro Johnston’s comments about the relationship between Creative Scotland and the cabinet secretary and his office. Some of the commentary around the report mentions that stakeholders raised concerns that the Scottish Government took little interest in Creative Scotland’s governance and did so only latterly when problems became too visible to ignore. Is that a fair comment?
09:00
That was not something that we heard. The main issue on governance was transparency. How could the board be more visible, more explicit in the rationale for the decisions that it makes and have more of a listening approach to what is happening in different sectors and different parts of the country?
How did it come about that part of the report seems to suggest that the Scottish Government was too distant at times but then sometimes not at arm’s length? I think that one of the comments around the report is that sometimes the Government had very short arms and was delving into things that were operational—it was felt to be interfering.
That was really in relation to the nature of the funding.
Do you mean that it was in relation to specific funding awards?
The funding is allocated to Creative Scotland for particular areas. There is a fund for youth music, there is a fund for festivals, there is a fund for expo, there is a fund for multiyear support and so it goes on. Creative Scotland and the board felt that that was far too narrow and that they would be able to do more if they had fewer restrictions.
So this is ring-fenced sums of money?
Yes.
Was it felt that it was too restrictive?
We have suggested that that be looked at. To balance that, though, we point out in the report that in order for the Government to have the assurance that the money will be spent effectively, Creative Scotland should really be coming forward with proposals and plans based on evidence of the sector’s needs.
We are back to leadership and strategy again.
It really is a partnership approach that is needed.
Was there a sense that the Scottish ministers were providing the level of strategic dialogue and direction that the organisation needed?
The feedback that we had from the board and the chair was that the engagement at a political level was constructive and took place fairly regularly. That is about as far as we went.
That is good. Thank you very much.
Good morning. I have a few separate topics to raise, if there is time. I will start with the core purpose of Creative Scotland, in particular in relation to fair work. We have heard repeatedly—I am sure that you have as well—about the concern throughout the sector that the creative industries generally have a significant problem with achieving anything close to fair work principles, particularly the parts that are dominated by freelance and insecure working.
The issue is referenced at several points in the report, but did you consider whether there is a need for a more substantive and clearly defined role for Creative Scotland in raising standards in the area? Creative Scotland takes the issue seriously, but some of its ways of working and decisions have actually repeated or entrenched the precarious working conditions that exist throughout the sector. Did you consider whether to make a more substantive recommendation on Creative Scotland’s purpose in relation to fair work?
Sorry, convener—I should have brought in Stuart Currie earlier, but he will want to say something on this issue.
We heard about fair work from a number of perspectives on a number of occasions. We were mindful of the piece of work that is under way in the culture fair work task force. We spoke to the chair of that task force, and at that point we felt that, given that there was a dedicated team looking at that issue, it was more appropriate for that team to make recommendations.
We considered the issue, and you are right that Creative Scotland takes the issue seriously. It is one of its principles and funding criteria. If it came to enforcement, that would require Creative Scotland to think about how to do that. Any action that it took would have to be based on fairly clear evidence, and that would require Creative Scotland to have a different approach. It might also have an impact on the body’s remit. On the one hand, it is a funder and, on the other hand, it would be judging whether the funds had been applied in a way that is fair. That is a difficult trade-off, and one that will have to be navigated in the forthcoming few years. However, I hope that the task force’s recommendations, whatever they may be, will support Creative Scotland’s approach to that in the future.
In thinking about how the situation will develop, we can all anticipate that new technologies will exacerbate some of the precarity issues and the lack of consistent employment rights for people who work in the sector. Is it your view that we should consider your report alongside the task force’s report and give equal weight to the recommendations and see how they fit together?
The specifics in our report suggest that the aspect of fair work should be considered alongside the task force report.
In an earlier answer, you mentioned the lack of capital funding. A number of the organisations that we have heard from recognise that addressing the climate emergency will be a significant challenge to many culture organisations. That will include a requirement for capital investment in buildings and facilities, either to decarbonise or to address the impacts of climate change. How do you envisage a capital funding stream working within Creative Scotland? How should its top-level strategic goals be defined? Should the body be given guidance from Government? Should it be entirely independent, as the cultural decisions of Creative Scotland are independent from politics? Alternatively, should that be demand led?
I will bring in Stuart Currie in a minute.
The issue of capital was raised, not just by people who rely on Creative Scotland or would like to be supported more effectively by it but by other parts of the culture sector that are funded separately. The role that Creative Scotland could and should play relates to a strategic overview of what capital investment is needed across the country. That can be informed by local feedback on what is needed locally, but the issue really needs to be looked at nationally, so that the limited funding can be targeted at the areas where it can be most impactful. We spoke to Creative Scotland about that, and the report refers to working with other national organisations such as the Scottish Futures Trust to assist with that.
Capital investment is not just about the climate emergency. We also heard about the importance of accessibility, for artists and audiences. Capital investment is key.
I will bring in my colleague now.
On Mr Harvie’s points on fair work, it is clear that Creative Scotland has the potential to lead the charge through funding. If you fund an organisation and say, “Part of the reason you are getting the funding is your commitment to fair work,” and you set out what that commitment is, it is not unreasonable to then say, “You said X. Have you delivered that?”
I know that the trade unions have strong views on those matters, particularly on effective voice, which is an on-going issue, and I understand that. However, Creative Scotland needs to lead by example. We found that Creative Scotland does not have a recognition agreement with its trade unions. That should perhaps be delivered, so that it can say, “We do this; therefore, you should look at that as well.”
The point about capital funding is really interesting. One part of the funding application is around climate change and ensuring that there is an action plan. That is a strong part of the application, and funding is given on that basis. However, I would have thought that you would want to avoid somebody applying for revenue funding and using part of that to fund capital works. Otherwise, you could end up hoovering up a huge amount of revenue funding into capital works, rather than looking at that separately. We think that capital funding is important from that point of view.
Colleagues from other nations in the UK told us that they have capital funds in place. It is not that someone will come along and ask for tens of millions to do something huge. We found from many organisations that a few thousand pounds in the right place can make a huge difference to what they do, in relation to not just their commitment to climate change but the experience of audiences and artists.
There are opportunities to make a big difference. That does not have to involve huge amounts of money, but it must be strategic. It is surprising that there is no overarching asset plan in Scotland in which we can see all the assets across Scotland, in local government and a range of areas, and what state they are in. Until we have that kind of baseline, it is difficult to understand what funding is needed and how to lever in additional funding from elsewhere.
I also want to ask about Screen Scotland. The report says that the position of Screen Scotland within Creative Scotland should be reviewed. It says:
“The evidence suggests that Screen Scotland is not fully integrated into Creative Scotland in a way that would enable it to make the most of its capacity and skills.”
However, it also says:
“there were calls for greater flexibility and autonomy for Screen Scotland to pursue its goals more assertively and effectively.”
Is there tension between those ideas of greater integration of Screen Scotland with Creative Scotland and greater independence, or autonomy, and flexibility? Can both be achieved in a coherent way, or are they in tension?
The couple of mentions of the games sector that I found in the report were more about saying whether the remit of Creative Scotland is flexible enough to permit that—it is—rather than whether the games sector is getting the kind of support that it could get from Creative Scotland and the extent to which Screen Scotland, Creative Scotland and other Government agencies engage with the games sector. Should there be an attempt to achieve the same kind of coherence for games as has been achieved successfully, as is widely acknowledged, through Screen Scotland?
On the dichotomy and tension with regard to integration, in line with the public service reform principles, it is entirely practical for Screen Scotland to be well supported, as it is to a degree, by Creative Scotland. The report reflects that greater integration could take place so that learning from Creative Scotland is transferred to Screen Scotland and from Screen Scotland to Creative Scotland. For example, we picked up on a lot of good practice in the funding processes that Screen Scotland adopts that would enhance some of Creative Scotland’s work. That needs to be furthered, but the focus on multiyear funding has perhaps limited the opportunities for that to happen.
We say in the report that Screen Scotland could strengthen its identity in a number of ways, such as through clear governance arrangements and setting out in the governance framework the delegations to the screen committee and the director for screen. That would allow agility, which we heard from the screen sector is needed, given the dynamic nature of how that sector works.
09:15
What about the games sector?
Creative Scotland’s remit is really broad. We heard about podcasting and from people in the comedy art form. There is no reason why those areas cannot be supported.
I go back to the interpretation of Creative Scotland’s remit. The remit can be constrained by Creative Scotland because of the funding streams. Unless there is a funding stream, Creative Scotland cannot provide support. Funding is the body’s primary focus, rather than also thinking about advocacy, development and influence. There is an opportunity for the board and the executive to reset their thinking about the remit and how they align financial and human resources to support the sector in its totality.
There is a recommendation to review the creative industries framework, which was set up around the same time as Creative Scotland was established, in 2010. Things have moved on since then. For example, South of Scotland Enterprise did not exist at that point. There are also opportunities to have a conversation across Government departments about the support that is given to creative industries, because it is not just Creative Scotland that has responsibility for that. It is also the enterprise agencies and others, such as Skills Development Scotland—
And local government—it is not all just central.
Indeed. That framework needs to be reviewed and brought up to date.
Thank you.
Good morning. The review noted that there was a fall in the total number of awards made between 2022-23 and 2023-24, which is attributed to sickness rates in the organisation and a decline in payments being made on time. Did the review determine the primary driver of the sickness? Was it to do with pressure, workloads or internal issues?
We could not evidence that. That part of the report came from the annual report that the auditors produced for Creative Scotland going back to 2023-24. We noted that sickness absence had increased. That is the type of performance information that a board, or one of its committees, would normally expect to see regularly. I was subsequently told by the chief executive that performance information is presented to the board, but Stuart Currie and I were not able to access that and it was not provided to us, so I cannot comment on any trends or changes in sickness absence or the causes.
That jumps out as an area that we need to consider. One of the issues could be whether Creative Scotland has been adequately resourced to deal with payments on time and, if not, whether that has resulted in pressures on staff. In your view, has Creative Scotland been adequately resourced to deliver its functions?
In the absence of performance information, it is difficult to say whether the resources that are used for operating costs are sufficient or otherwise. As with most other public sector organisations, you would expect efficiency plans to be in place and a regular refresh of the workforce plan. That is particularly the case for Creative Scotland, in light of the change around multiyear funding. I would expect to see things such as a plan for digital enhancement, or how to use digital more effectively, so that human resources can focus on the areas where they can add most value.
We suggest in the report that Creative Scotland could now turn its mind to those areas but, at this point, and until we see what the baseline is, I could not say whether more resources are necessary for it to operate.
You said that the review called for the digitisation and streamlining of operations. Is there a specific measurable target that you think should be set to ensure that more payments are made on time or more quickly? Is there a specific timeframe for that?
Like most public sector organisations, Creative Scotland would undertake benchmarking by looking at similar organisations in the UK or elsewhere or at other organisations that operate in Scotland in a similar vein; sportscotland, for example, is quite similar in that it gets Scottish Government funding as well as lottery funding. There are opportunities to benchmark in order to set standards, and you would expect the board or a committee of the board to undertake quarterly reviews of such key performance indicators.
I want to follow up the question that Patrick Harvie asked about fair work. Recommendation 18 states:
“As fair work is a key priority of Creative Scotland, its compliance should be more effectively monitored across funded organisations.”
You noted that Creative Scotland does not feel that it has the resources to effectively monitor compliance; in fact, you said:
“Creative Scotland is clear that it lacks the funding to enforce the conditionality of Fair Work First.”
Creative Scotland says that fair work is a priority, but enforcement is not happening—saying that something is a priority and enforcing the conditionality to make it a priority are two slightly different things. To what extent is fair work a priority for Creative Scotland?
It is a stated priority. It is one of its four principles and one of its six funding criteria, so it is very much a priority. Although we did not find evidence of Creative Scotland enforcing the conditionality on fair work, we heard that it actively pursued areas where there were reports that it was not being applied.
You are moving into what is almost a regulatory function, which would really need to be looked at in the context of Creative Scotland’s authority, powers and sanctions. Creative Scotland, its board, the committee and the Government would need to be satisfied that they were clear about the authority that Creative Scotland was being given.
Thank you. Lastly, you noted that there is no specific capital fund for the creative sector in Scotland, although obviously funding is used for capital purposes in the sector. You mentioned retrofitting for energy and accessibility as primary reasons for a capital fund. Would new-build capital investment still be separate? The Scottish Government receives applications to support quite significant capital investment in new build every year. Would that be part of a capital fund, or would such a fund be very much about investment in the current estate rather than new build?
The recommendation is that a capital fund could be established, but, as Stuart Currie said, a wider strategic view of capital investment needs to be taken. Investing in the current estate can go so far, but there might be investment in estate that is not fit for purpose and would be difficult to retrofit to meet the standards on environmental sustainability and accessibility that are now required. That needs to be looked at with partners from a wider and regional perspective, and it would be a significant piece of planning work.
We have had reports of backlogs in the capital funding that is needed for colleges, hospitals and schools. Is there a quantum for what is needed to bring the cultural sector’s capital estate up to standard?
We did not have the time to quantify that, but I know that some other bodies have done that. Fairly significant work was done to look at what it would take to bring the school estate up to a standard that is fit for modern-day learning. Just getting a plan to that stage would be a substantial piece of work and a significant investment, but at least it would guide future investment decisions.
So, you have not quantified it, but you have identified that there is a significant need.
We heard repeatedly that there is a need.
We spoke to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about a key issue, which is that local government owns a huge amount of assets in our communities that are often managed by arm’s-length organisations or charitable organisations. We asked COSLA what conversations it has at a national level with Creative Scotland about those very issues around the estate—what the position is, where the funding is and whether funding can be leveraged from external sources. Little or no conversations are happening between COSLA and Creative Scotland.
There is a point made in the report about building relationships and having those conversations. That does not mean to say that you are going to magic up the cash, but it does mean that you start to talk about what is required. Capital investment plans in local government, which are extensive—they go into the billions each year—are about having conversations about where something fits in and how it can be enhanced. It is about ensuring that, where people are actually using facilities, there is an opportunity for Creative Scotland to be part of the conversation to see where the funding may or may not come from.
It is good to see you both again. I have a couple of questions, and will play devil’s advocate. The first is, how much of what you found during the review could be attributed to the fact that, since it was formed 15 to 20 years ago, Creative Scotland has endured as much austerity budgeting as everybody else? Was that reflected in the concerns that were raised? Is it likely that a grant-giving body that has been rationing public funds for 15 years will give rise to some centres of discontent? Capital in particular has been slashed over the past decade or so. To what extent might austerity budgeting explain some of your findings?
It will almost definitely have been a factor. One of the comments in the report—which was reflected in the engagement sessions—was that the sector’s ambition far outstripped any funding that could be allocated. That goes back to the point about recognising that there is a finite amount of money. Therefore, in working with the sector and partners, setting priorities is absolutely key.
Thanks for that. You also mentioned the importance of scrutiny of the board in particular. The committee has had concerns in the past when it has tried to scrutinise the work of boards and there has sometimes been an evasiveness or a willingness to use their two different funders to obscure proper scrutiny, and almost a resentment at being held to account. That will not apply to all members of the board but to those who attend the committee.
Could you say anything about that? Is it just that there needs to be greater scrutiny by the board or does your review tell you that the organisation as a whole needs to better understand that it is being held to account and not shrink from that?
09:30
Strengthening its performance monitoring and reporting would enhance the board’s ability to make decisions more effectively and ably. It would also give greater clarity to the committee, the Government, the cabinet secretary and so on. Relying on an annual report that comes out nine months after the period on which it is reporting does not give adequate assurance to the board or the funding bodies, whether funding is from the Government or the lottery.
As I said in response to the convener’s question, it is not unreasonable to have a national body explicitly demonstrate how it supports the programme for government that it sets and to have it report against that more frequently.
In some of the engagement sessions we talked about practice in health, for instance, where there are annual public meetings, the public, the sector and parliamentarians are invited, and bodies are held to account. There are opportunities for bodies to instigate such practices themselves, rather than having them prescribed.
Have you seen Creative Scotland’s response to your review?
I have just seen it, yes.
I wonder whether it would cause a lot of people concern. It seems to me that it is not exactly dismissing the review but is saying that many of those things were already under consideration, that it could not do some things because of cash and that it will not be able to do some things unless it gets more cash. That does not speak to a body that is ready to listen to scrutiny or criticism when it is justified. In its response to your review, it seems to be digging its heels in. Did you come across that characteristic during the review?
Having been subject to reviews by scrutiny bodies in the past, I know that it is always quite difficult. I met the chair and the chief executive last week and we had a conversation. I tried to explain where we had heard some of the rationale for the recommendations that we put forward, and I suggested that they produce a plan to show that they have taken the recommendations and advice on board. It is an opportunity for them. If they were to come to the Government quickly and say which areas they want to accelerate, there would be a clear mandate for them to do so.
I also pointed out that a lot of this does not need direction. They have the suggestions and feedback, primarily from the sector—the totality of the sector, not just the funded bodies—that demonstrates to them some of the changes that need to be made.
Creative Scotland already has plans in some areas. We gathered evidence and we took stock at the end of August to the middle of September and we were not aware of a lot of those plans at that time. It is good to know that that work is now under way. If our questions and asks of Creative Scotland for information have reaffirmed its commitment to that type of work, the review has, in part, been successful.
I will add to that point. It should not be difficult to identify how decisions are made, why they are made and by whom. That is accountability, and this is public money. It is not unreasonable for people to expect that level of scrutiny and transparency throughout the organisation.
It has been 15 years since Creative Scotland was set up. You could argue that, following an independent review and lots of questions, some of the changes should have been made earlier, but perhaps that is because it has taken so long for a review.
However, the phrase that always strikes me is that no one ever sees themselves as other people see them. Our recommendations are based on what we heard. We did not wake up one morning and think that something would be a good recommendation—it was what we heard. We said from the outset that the review would be based on evidence taken from the engagement with hundreds of people who took the time and effort in their busy schedules to tell us what they thought and why. That is important.
If changes are being made, that is fine, but to build confidence in anyone seeking clarity or transparency, there has to be demonstrable delivery of those over time to ensure that they are embedded in the organisation. That makes for better decision making, which is what everyone wants. Everyone wants the best decisions to be made, based on the best evidence available. If that is what is going to happen and we are going to get there, that is great. However, everyone, particularly those who apply for funding, would want to be sure that change is demonstrated and built into the organisation.
On the point about having the best evidence available, it seems that you were not aware of some things that Creative Scotland now says were in train and under way. You were not told about them. I imagine that that will concern the committee, as will your response to Mr Bibby earlier about not being told performance monitoring information. I do not know why the review was not given that information. Leaving that aside, however, I have two final points.
One is on the issue of discontent. Mr Halcro Johnston has already mentioned the northern isles and the Highlands. Usually, when we talk about being fair across Scotland, we say that, in addition to the central belt, the Borders and the Highlands should be looked after. That leaves huge tracts of Scotland quite discontent. You will be very aware of the situation in Clackmannanshire, for example. However, there are areas, such as Ayrshire, that do not feel they get a look in. The big arts festivals in Edinburgh soak up a lot of the funding. It may be that those areas are so culturally barren that they need some speculative funding. Maybe that is where Creative Scotland has to be bolder. Can you confirm whether you found different parts of Scotland saying that they were a bit discontent with the extent to which they get attention—far less any finance—from Creative Scotland?
Yes, we did hear that. We heard that repeatedly outwith Glasgow and Edinburgh. Even in the engagement sessions that we had in the two cities, there were people from surrounding areas, and we heard the same thing from them.
In the remit of Creative Scotland, there is a requirement for development work. A lot of people come forward for funding and support, but in some areas, there is a need to work constructively with the enterprise agency and local government to think about how to foster growth in culture, the arts and the creative industries.
In response to Mr Kerr’s earlier question about the options appraisal, I know that multiyear funding has been a huge success. We might have expected to see options that looked at exactly that. For the arts and culture to thrive across Scotland, where are the areas where there are opportunities to help them flourish? Where are the gaps, and how could additional money support those areas more effectively?
Thanks. My last question.
You were taken down the road of being asked about the cabinet secretary’s involvement earlier, to the surprise of nobody on the committee. However, your review was not a review of the cabinet secretary but a review of Creative Scotland. The answers that you gave referred to the two meetings that you had with the board, the recommendation that there should be greater working with the sponsorship team in the Scottish Government, and the fact that you had meetings with the cabinet secretary. Do you agree that that kind of engagement is pretty much the norm for such reviews?
We undertook to go back with our remit, simply saying where we had got to and what we thought the remit needed to include. That was accepted in full by the cabinet secretary. The follow-up meeting was when the report was finalised. I went along to explain the content of the report and to answer questions on particular aspects, but the report was finished at that time. Our independence was certainly protected at all stages.
To be assured of the effectiveness of the organisation, although the sponsorship team gets key performance indicators, primarily on the funding that is allocated, I suggest that that process should probably be broader and look at the totality of Creative Scotland’s remit.
Thank you.
Good morning. I am not going to dress it up: in my dealings with Creative Scotland, I have always found it quite an arrogant organisation. It is not just me, as a precious politician, who is thinking that; it is also the creatives in my constituency, who find the organisation difficult to deal with. Your report backs that up, saying that it is too bureaucratic and too difficult to deal with. Is that not the issue?
Your report also brings up the fact that the organisation throws money at the creatives and does not develop it further. The creatives feel left, or, in the opposite way, some creatives end up feeling that they are the ones who have got to fit a pigeonhole that Creative Scotland has created with the funding. As you say, it is primarily a funding body. It is not just the case that everybody complains about funding bodies. There seems to be something wrong here, and I think that it is the arrogance of the organisation. What do we think of that?
I think that that is a view that you could express, but I think that we have pointed to a whole lot of areas where there is improvement, and that is based on feedback from the sector. We did hear that the organisation was too bureaucratic, that the returns that were required of funded organisations were burdensome, that the application process was extensive, that—to go back to multiyear funding—the requirements between stage 1 and stage 2 were very time consuming, and that there is no transparency. Creative Scotland was perceived as an organisation that does not learn from incidents. There were a lot of views, and I have to stress that, as Stuart Currie said, those are the views of the people we spoke to and that is the evidence that we gathered. There is a lot in the report that Creative Scotland can go away and address in the spirit of being an open and learning organisation.
But its letter in effect says, “Yes, we had this plan written on the back of a beer mat, and we were going to implement it anyway, but you knew nothing of it.” That seems arrogant.
Well, I am sure that that is something that the committee will explore in a bit more detail in Creative Scotland’s next engagement with you.
I have a question for Stuart Currie on the capital fund. I find it bizarre that there was no engagement with COSLA and local government. As MSP for the Paisley constituency, where there is quite an investment in the historic museum, the town hall and so on, I find it difficult to understand why Scotland’s main creative organisation would not be at that table having those conversations. Can you give me a wee bit more detail on that?
09:45
Yes, I can. It was surprising. We had an extensive conversation with COSLA about it, thinking that, given the ownership of so many assets, from community venues to theatres, there would be a strong relationship, but it was not a relationship that bore much fruit. Thinking about capital funding, it seems to us that you have to get everyone with an interest in the room and find out what is available. If you are waiting for local authorities, Creative Scotland or the Government to suddenly produce all the funding, that is unlikely to happen. However, there may be a cumulative impact from having all the funders who might be able to assist in the same room talking to each other. We have found from having those conversations that people want to help each other. People want to make things happen and improve facilities and everybody’s experience, so that people are encouraged to come back time after time as audience members or as artists .
By getting everyone in the room to have those discussions, you find out what is available and what you can leverage. There are climate change funds, for example, and there are national and Scottish funds, but unless you get in that room and talk about it, you can end up with everyone having separate discussions about funding instead of pulling them together. We think that that is important. There are lots of organisations, such as sportscotland and all the other arts organisations across the UK. I am sure that conversations are had on occasion, but having fruitful discussions and building relationships can have a pretty productive cumulative impact.
That is particularly the case with capital funding. Everyone in this room and elsewhere knows that capital funding is difficult to find, but there are opportunities to at the very least have those discussions, find out what you have and what you do not have and then try to programme it. We are not saying that that will happen in three weeks on Tuesday. Any capital investment plan is going to be five, 10 or 15 years in the making—it could be 20 years ahead—but at least, if you have those conversations, you can start to programme it. As Angela Leitch said, are buildings fit for purpose? Does it require a new build? Is there a different way of delivering the service in community facilities or elsewhere? However, we think that building those relationships and having those conversations is a pretty good first step.
On the point about capital funding, it is not necessarily about creating a big pot. In some other parts of the UK, funding is almost like a loan scheme: you create the fund and, if it is done properly, with these conversations being had, it will be constantly being paid back into by the people you are funding. In some of the cases that I have looked at, capital funding has been more like a loan process. That looks quite interesting at a time when capital spend is difficult to find.
Yes, I think that, whether it is grants or loans, there can be a fear that we are talking about millions—about huge capital projects. A lot of people have told us that funding can sometimes be a few thousand pounds or a few hundred pounds. A very local community-based organisation that is run entirely on volunteers, not a cadre of professionals, can encourage people to help them and a few hundred pounds or a few thousand pounds could make a difference. Again, however, until those conversations are had, you just do not know what is possible. If people succeed in getting funding from Creative Scotland or elsewhere, using revenue funding for art as capital funding may not be the best way forward. You could end up with a lot of money being diverted into capital works when you are trying to develop art, and that was part of the application process.
Thank you.
I know that we are over the time we said, but I have one final question. It goes back to the history of the situation, which started with the merger of Scottish Screen and the Scottish Arts Council, as was. We have heard that Screen Scotland has been a success. I am looking at its organisational structure and see that it has a chief executive for regional Screen Scotland, so it is organised in a regional and strategic way.
If you were looking at a Venn diagram of Creative Scotland, do you think that the way forward could be for it to have smaller organisations within it, as Screen Scotland does, focusing on particular sectors? Do you think that the screen sector and, hopefully, the games sector could be in there so that they can apply for grants in England, because we differ from the rest of the UK in that our games industry stands outside that? Do you think that a focused group of organisations such as Screen Scotland would be more successful than the way in which the board has been operating and will operate in the future?
There are definitely models that Creative Scotland could look at. We looked at a number of international comparators—I think that Australia was one—and some organisations are based on art-form specialisms. There were pros and cons to that, but it is definitely a way forward.
Going back to public service reform, I note that in the report we talk about our engagement with, for example, Architecture and Design Scotland. There are opportunities for hosting arrangements as part of a national body that would allow investment in infrastructure, in digital and in the sharing of the services that every organisation has to rely on. That reduces operating costs and puts as much funding as possible into the industry or the art form that is so important. We have made a particular recommendation on that, and also on looking at the totality of the funding across the culture sector, just to see whether it is meeting best value.
Thanks. It is hard to know where to start when you do not have the basics of an asset register.
I have one final question, convener.
I will ask the panellists, who were hoping to leave at least five minutes ago. Are you okay?
I will be very quick. Thank you, convener. My question is about political independence.
The act that created Creative Scotland says:
“The Scottish Ministers may give Creative Scotland directions … as to the exercise of its functions. But the Scottish Ministers may not give directions as far as relating to artistic or cultural judgement.”
I think that political independence in respect of creative and artistic judgment is important. The fact that the phrase “culture war” even exists indicates to us that certain issues are being politicised at the moment in our culture, and I would suggest that most of the attempts at that kind of political interference do not come from the Government. They have been expressed in the Parliament or in the media. Does Creative Scotland need similar protection to the one that it has from political interference on cultural and artistic judgments from the Government? Does it need that protection from the Parliament as well?
That is something that could probably be explored. A bold, strong and confident organisation that has a clear set of priorities, that is supported by a good financial plan that articulates what it is going to do and what it is not going to do, and that aligns its human resources and other support functions to make that happen should be able to explain the rationale for any decisions that it makes to the media or to the Parliament. It may be advantageous to have some protections. It is not something that we looked at or heard was necessary, but there are a lot of other recommendations in the report that would give strength to the sector that it is looking for.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for your attendance at committee this morning and for all your work on the report.
09:53 Meeting suspended.Air ais
Attendance