Chamber and committees

Ms Oldfather, I recognise that the whole area of where we are when it comes to society and the rights, obligations, wishes and aspirations of citizens is very much part of what is trying to be achieved, but it would be good to get your view on what the barriers are, because there are still barriers. Attempts have been made to co-operate and collaborate on some things. Some of those attempts have been successful; others have not. Sometimes, one side has had a different opinion or view on what should happen.

However, at the end of the day, civil society and citizens still have a role to play in what we are trying to establish. They want to create and be part of the future. That future is dependent on the views and opinions that people have and the side that they sit on. The success of the process will depend on how citizens themselves manage that.

I also talked about transparency and the frustrations that are still apparent, and the knowledge that we want to try and iron out as many difficulties as we can, but there is still conflict in many areas. As you identify, elections are coming in the not-too-distant future for you and for us, which may give a change of direction. Would that diminish some of that frustration and progress things, or will we still be in the same locations?

Time is moving on, and I know that others want to come in, so I will leave it there.

Good morning, panel members. Mr McGuire, you talked about the report being a snapshot of where we are at present. When it comes to participation and engagement, especially in areas such as citizens’ rights and equality, the nations and regions sub-group raised issues about the relationship between the EU and the UK and equalities that do not fall within the remit of the TCA. How is progress on equality and social policy being monitored? There were concerns that the UK frameworks in that area might fall behind in some ways, and we want to ensure that accessibility, equality and transparency are very much part of the process.

It would be good to get a flavour as to whether we are meeting expectations, or whether there are concerns about the mismatch that still appears to be there. There have been areas on which concerns have been raised but things have been ironed out or progressed. It would be good to get a flavour as to where you think we are and what opportunities there might be. As we know, we are in a change situation, given what might happen in the United Kingdom with elections in a few weeks, and with Europe having had elections already. That may have an impact on what can, might and will be done in future.

In the previous evidence session, we discussed mutual recognition systems, and Irene Oldfather discussed where we are on disabled individuals and disabled people’s parking rights. There is obviously a logjam with that, and I know that there is an attempt to have some sort of mutual recognition system when that comes together. It would be good to get a flavour of whether you see that as something that can be achieved in the medium to short term. Are there more problems along the lines of disabled individuals and citizens having difficulties when they go from one place to the other?

The Windsor framework was welcomed and embraced by both sides. How do you see that approach developing in future? Could there be a mark 2 Windsor framework, with more progress on certain areas, such as citizenship, trade and mobility? Those are all still live situations and circumstances, and the hope is that there could be more negotiations and discussions about what might be achieved for the future in that regard.

Finally, what lessons can be learned from this entire saga to try to rebuild confidence in the sector and deal with the reputational damage to which you have already alluded?

Good morning, gentlemen. This entire saga has cast a dark shadow over Creative Scotland. In your opening statement, Mr Wilson, you suggested that it had caused “significant controversy”. I would suggest that that was the least of the situation; significant controversy is where we are with the application. The application itself and the public statements that were subsequently made differ—and we have been privy to lots of information over the past few days. The explicit nature of the project in itself made it significantly controversial.

Has an assessment been made of the reputational damage that the matter has created for Creative Scotland and the sector? Can you tell us what that damage is?

In your letter to the convener of 16 April, you stated:

“Rein was originally supported in the knowledge it would be a challenging, creatively ambitious piece of experimental performance art, with a clear storytelling narrative, strong sexual themes and simulated sexual performance”.

However, it was very much the case that the performance was not to be simulated. From looking at some of the information that we have seen from freedom of information requests, it is clear that, right from the start, genital contact and sexual performance was being indicated.

Why did you say that to us in your letter of 16 April, while knowing that the information was not correct?

Thank you. Mr Holmes, do you have any comments on that?