THE PLOT thickens. The draft Culture Bill, paving the way for legislation to set up Creative Scotland, the new body to fund Scottish artists and smaller arts companies in the coming years, was published yesterday. The intention is to put the arts on a secure financial footing, rewarding excellence and challenging each recipient of core funding to raise its game. Ministers believe the model, combined with the new arrangements for funding the five national companies, will enable the arts to go from strength to strength, cementing the place of culture in devolved Scotland while bringing a wider social and economic benefit.

So much for the script. While elements of the bill are welcome, there are parts that give cause for concern, specifically clause 16. This states that Scottish Executive ministers may direct and guide Creative Scotland as to how it should carry out its functions. This is a departure in the way the arts have been funded. The principle of armslength funding was established under the Scottish Arts Council. Creative Scotland will take on its duties, and those of Scottish Screen.

Have ministers been biding their time to get their hands on the arts via new legislation? Patricia Ferguson, the Culture Minister, denies this. She says she has no intention to use the powers proposed. If they are not to be used, why enshrine them in law? Ms Ferguson's instinct is not to interfere. Can she be sure that will be the case with her successors, regardless of their political hue? Can we? The answer is no.

It is true that the five national companies will be funded directly by the executive, giving ministers potentially much more power over opera, ballet, music and drama of the highest quality than at present. These are prestigious companies with international reputations. They would be able to create a stink, causing embarrassment to ministers, if they were constrained in their output for political reasons.

The companies and individuals to be funded by Creative Scotland are not in that fortunate position. Their situation is much more precarious. Many are busy trying to make a reputation. The fact they are more vulnerable financially, and pull less weight, makes it all the more important to preserve the arms-length principle.

However, the bill undermines another principle underpinning culture: the value of art for art's sake. A sub-clause says economic value and benefit should be a priority for the arts. While it would be wrong to throw public money at irresponsible arts companies, Scotland's artists should not be put under undue pressure to think in purely commercial terms. That would devalue artistic endeavour. Paradoxically, provisions to give every Scot an entitlement to culture are intended to embed the arts and enable everyone to enjoy them. But the bill fails to explain what this means in practice, other than to oblige local authorities to identify entitlement and fund it from existing budgets. Given the state of council funding, this could result in patchwork provision, leaving the arts and culture down the pecking orderwhen priority front-line services have to be funded from finite budgets.

But the Bill has gone out for consultation. The opportunity to respond should be seized to make it better, in the first instance by forcing the excision of Section 16. If we are serious about preserving artistic freedom, by removing the threat of political interference, this clause must be consigned to the draft legislator's dustbin.