Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate that there are different perspectives. From a policy perspective, I am not sure if I am more confused or less confused, but thank you for the answers.

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?

Thank you.

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?

Thank you.

I wonder whether I can follow that up by asking colleagues to explore a certain scenario. At UK level, the main Opposition party in Parliament is seeking to repeal climate legislation, and there is a political party polling very strongly for the next election whose policy is led by outright climate change denial and conspiracy theory. To what extent would the Scottish Government’s international offices still be able to adequately function and deliver the Scottish Government’s policy in that area if a UK Government came in that was pursuing the polar opposite agenda?

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?

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?

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?

And local government—it is not all just central.