Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. I invite Tanja Buzek to go next.

We are conscious of time, but I offer Tanja Buzek and Léa Auffret an opportunity to respond to Mr Stewart’s question, if they want to.

Léa Auffret, would you like to respond first? I am sorry—Tanja Buzek would like to comment.

Are there any further questions?

That concludes questions from the committee. I thank Mr Munro and Mr Wilson for attending.

We now move into private.

Good morning, and a warm welcome to the 14th meeting in 2024 of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. Mr Bibby joins us online. We are also joined by committee substitute Kevin Stewart MSP, whom I welcome.

Our first agenda item is a decision on taking business in private. Are members content to take item 3 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next agenda item is to take evidence from Creative Scotland on its funding for Rein. I welcome to the meeting Iain Munro, chief executive, and Robert Wilson, chair of the board, Creative Scotland.

I invite Mr Wilson to make a brief opening statement.

I bring in Neil Bibby, who joins us online.

I would like you to clarify one point. You said that the stuff that was in the original application was consistent with all industry standards. However, in the section of the application on risks, it states:

“Where necessary, COVID and STI tests will be done by performers ahead of rehearsals with risk assessments done with the results.”

Are tests for sexually transmitted infections an industry standard for productions?

I have a final question for Mr Munro—I am sorry, Mr Wilson.

Mr Munro, you mentioned earlier the high standard of Leonie Rae Gasson’s credentials as an artist. You used the term “contested”—you said that the legal action was not contested. I ask you to clarify whether your understanding is that there is a fundamental disagreement between the artist and you about how the initial application was interpreted. Although it is not legally contested, the artist remains concerned about the interpretation and has a fundamental disagreement with you on it. Is that correct?