Chamber and committees

Good morning. We have talked a lot about youth mobility but, as the convener mentioned at the outset, the DAG’s recent report highlights the importance of mobility for artists and technical support staff through a cultural worker visa. That will obviously affect a lot of young people, but it will affect people of all ages, too. How has that recommendation been received, and how likely is it to progress?

Clearly, in negotiating such a complex agreement as the TCA, people will want to look at the detail of specific issues but also to look at it in the round. I imagine that it is particularly challenging to look at the details while also looking at things in the round.

I have a question that follows on from our previous discussion with the DAG about the Law Society of Scotland. I understand that the DAG has representation from England and Wales via the Law Society and the Bar Council, but that the Law Society of Scotland is not a specific member of the DAG. Irene, I know that you were hoping that that would be addressed. Is there any update on that? Clearly, if there are legal ramifications for the devolved nations and, in particular, Scotland, it would be advantageous to have input from the Law Society of Scotland.

I do not know whether anyone else has any further thoughts on that. Perhaps Luísa Santos or Léa Auffret could say more from their perspectives.

Good morning, panel members.

We have heard that Creative Scotland’s letter to the committee and its wider statements to the media suggested that it believed that no non-simulated sexual activity was to take place as part of the project.

However, we just heard from Alexander Stewart about genital contact being mentioned in the application, and from the convener about STI checks being part of the application.

There is mention in the application of “a sex party” and two sexual acts beginning with the letter F, and it states that people who work on the project will have “experience ... in ... pornography”.

As you said earlier, it was suggested in the R and D phase that there would be non-simulated sex. Is that correct? Was that, and were all the things that we have just mentioned, in the application?

Mr Wilson?

Given everything that was in the application, the suggestion in the R and D phase of non-simulated sex should surely have raised eyebrows at that point and provoked at least some further explanation from the assessor on the nature of the sexual activity involved.

Personally, I think that what was in the application should have set off alarm bells.

Earlier, Mr Wilson said that Creative Scotland has not misled anyone. From what you have said about the application, and the fact that it turned out to include live sex, do you believe that Creative Scotland was misled by the applicant about the nature of the project?

Thank you for your answers. I have one final question. Substantial funds of more than £100,000 were awarded to the project’s R and D phase and application. We have heard this morning that the bulk of the funds have been repaid. How much was awarded and how much has been repaid?

We have already discussed the public discourse and the reaction to the funding grant. The committee wrote to Creative Scotland on 25 March, asking for the application to be published because we felt that doing so was in the interests of public confidence and transparency. Creative Scotland responded on 16 April, stating that, although there was an intention to publish the application, that could not be done until

“a thorough review of ... materials”

was undertaken

“to remove any personal information, any business confidential information, or any information that, if publicly disclosed, could pose a threat to an individual”.

You will note that the application and the materials were released under FOI on Tuesday 21 May. The first I heard of the application process was through the media. However, the committee was not sent the full application until 22 May. As the committee asked for the application to be published on 25 March, why did it have to learn about it through the media a day after it was released?

So £31,578 has not been repaid.