Official Report 213KB pdf
I welcome to the committee the Deputy Minister for Sport, the Arts and Culture. We need to make the letters on the nameplate bigger—it is very difficult to read.
I will be happy to do that. I will give a breakdown of expenditure on the Ryder cup bid and then answer any further questions that might arise.
Do members have questions on that particular issue?
How does the £104,000 that was spent on the bid relate to the money from sponsors that was spent on the bid? In other words, what was the total cost of the bid, of which £104,000 was the contribution from the Scottish Executive?
As I said, we are not at liberty to disclose the private sector contribution. It might be a matter that Mike Russell could raise with others. The total cost to the Executive of submitting the bid is as I have outlined.
Was there a contribution from commercial sponsors to the cost of mounting the bid?
Part of the cost of mounting the bid involved tournament golf so, for example, last year there was £7.25 million available for competition in tournament golf in Scotland. We can safely say that that is more than anywhere else in Europe. The majority of that money was from the private sector, but a proportion of it came from the Executive to support the Women Professional Golfers Association tournament and the Scottish Open in particular.
Will the rolled forward bid for 2014 include the same amount of funding for young people learning golf? Are you aware of any difficulties, or of the intentions of commercial sponsors of the initial bid with regard to the 2014 bid? In other words, what is in place from commercial sponsors to support that bid and what is still to be secured?
As I said, we will agree in due course what support we will provide for the 2014 event at Gleneagles. That should not detract from the fact that, for example, golf tourism remains a key sector for visitscotland, which will continue to promote it. In addition, sportscotland will continue to support and promote the junior golf development programme to introduce all children to the game of golf by their ninth birthday by 2009. Those were integral parts of the bid.
The other strand within the Ryder cup proposals was the opportunity for nine-year-olds to access golf. How much work has been done on that, specifically in relation to the increasing concern about the quality of many municipal golf courses? Over the years, many councils have experienced budget difficulties and have adopted different priorities in relation to sports and leisure fields. How can we make access equitable? There is also the broader issue of the nature of some golf courses and clubs and whether there might be some sort of opening up of practices to facilitate a much more inclusive Scotland.
Yes. As I said to Mr Russell, it is our intention to press ahead with our junior golf development programme. Plans for that are well advanced and include the construction of junior golf courses in areas, for example, in inner-city areas, where children have not previously had the opportunity to play golf on neighbourhood courses. However, we cannot deliver the programme simply by reference to municipal and privately owned courses. We must involve golf ranges and take any other opportunity to involve private and municipal partners in delivering our objectives.
Let us move on to other issues.
According to the figures that are available for this year, it is clear that the visitor numbers for most attractions are falling. Following the horrible events of 11 September, those figures are likely to fall further. To what extent does the drop in visitor numbers to attractions impact on the budget and is any allowance being made for a further fall in visitors in future years, because that will impact on Historic Scotland, National Museums of Scotland, National Galleries of Scotland and other organisations that the Executive funds?
That is a good question. At the outset of the foot-and-mouth outbreak I asked for the returns from Historic Scotland to be sent to me monthly. Although various venues fared differently, overall there was—as at the end of last month—a 10 per cent reduction in revenue accruing to Historic Scotland, which is a result of the fall-off in visitor numbers. It is a matter of conjecture how those figures might be affected by the events of 11 September. Obviously that is a concern for my budget because it has an adverse impact on it. We must take account of future loss of revenue. We have been in constant contact with Historic Scotland to ensure that the necessary steps are taken now to take account of the fall-off in visitor numbers. We will be in close contact up to the end of the financial year and beyond.
Is it your intention to seek support from contingency funding to tide such organisations over, or will programmes such as allowing free entry to certain museums have to be stalled so that you can afford the cost of the drop in numbers?
We are currently looking at forecasts following 11 September. The 10 per cent drop is largely as a result of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. The British Tourist Authority now advises that the drop will be up to 20 per cent—our early figures also indicate that that will be the case. Historic Scotland will seek some assistance next year. I do not know how that will be determined, but the drop will have a major impact on our income.
I have a final question for the minister. A sum of £2 million has been earmarked for a national theatre company. Is that funding still secure? A number of theatre companies have made noises to the effect that the attractive funding of theatre south of the border makes it difficult for them to retain actors, technicians and directors in Scotland. There is concern that the local theatres require additional funding. Clearly, if we are to fund local theatres, support for a national theatre could be under threat. Is the funding for the national theatre that has already been announced still secure?
Yes, the original funding is still in place. In my considerable discussions over the past weeks and months with the theatre community in its widest sense, people have been at pains to point out to me the importance of the rate of investment in the theatre infrastructure. That is seen as having priority over any extension of theatre, such as the proposal for a national theatre company. We are conscious of the representations that the theatre community has made about the priority of investing in the existing infrastructure. In the light of events south of the border, we are aware that people in the theatre community are working in what is, in effect, a single market in the UK. We do not wish our Scottish artists, technicians and backstage staff to be placed at a disadvantage compared with their colleagues south of the border.
I note that the Executive's information on the targets for the number of schools taking part in the active primary schools programmes was incorrect. The original figures, of 222 schools for 2000-01 and 400 for 2001-02, have been revised to 100 for last year and 250 for this year. Was that a typing or input error, or were the targets not met and therefore revised downwards?
The erroneous figures to which you refer were probably an error from an incorrect transcription of the school co-ordinators figures to the new programme. The erroneous figures bear a remarkable resemblance to the school co-ordinators figures. It was not envisaged that the pilot stage of the new programme would involve any more schools than are currently involved. I share the committee's expectation that we should be able to expand that programme, because I believe fundamentally in what the active primary schools programme is setting out to do. I want that programme to be given greater emphasis in future years.
The draft budget sets out clearly the aims of the cultural strategy and highlights the role of the Scottish Arts Council. We often have good ideas that people support, but it can be difficult to see how those ideas have been implemented, how the money has been spent and how it is being monitored. How will we know what has been spent on the cultural strategy and how it has worked? How are we ensuring that that money is getting to grass-roots level so that Scottish people can participate in their culture, and that we are not simply funding high art?
That is a good question. As you know, there will be a debate on Thursday on our annual report to Parliament on our progress in securing the objectives that were outlined in the national cultural strategy. That will give everybody the opportunity to have his or her say on those objectives.
You answered my second question before I asked it.
The problem is that it is not a particularly big budget. Since I came to office, I have been engaged in vigorous discussions with my colleagues Jack McConnell and Nicol Stephen on how that money could be used to maximum effect. I would have liked to have been able to come to the committee and say how we intend to do that, but unfortunately the discussions are on-going and we have not yet resolved how best to spend the £750,000 that is available for the introduction of cultural co-ordinators.
It is Mike Russell's turn.
You are being very hard on me, today, convener.
I do not want to interrupt the lady in full flow.
All right, Cathy. You can have only one question then, Mike.
I will be very quick. Will cultural co-ordinators facilitate participation in culture, rather than champion culture within schools, in the same way as sports co-ordinators do for sports?
I see them as performing a functional duty in schools, which is to ensure the broadest range of access to local and national culture. The co-ordinators will facilitate that access. It is a question of how we best utilise the money to maximise the impact throughout Scotland, rather than concentrate on specific parts of Scotland.
I have two questions, if you will indulge me, convener. The first is on some specifics in the budget and the second is a more general question.
That was three questions.
It is an all-in-one.
Mike Russell is known as a chancer.
Who's counting?
The minister is looking at those issues together, as the Scottish Arts Council and the theatre community have proposed. The desire that the national theatre should not be funded at the expense of the rest of the theatre community is a representation that has been made strongly to the minister and which has been heard.
Normally we would look at expenditure for 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. However, because of the rather unorthodox fashion in which the matter has recently been brought to us we now require to examine expenditure for 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, because of the linkages. I do not know if that makes it any clearer.
Following up the question of theatre, my understanding of the present situation is that the Scottish Arts Council has made a bid to you for additional money—in light of the expenditure flatline over the coming three years and in accordance with procedures—which would include additional money that is not intended to match the Boyden report, but to provide an impetus to the Scottish theatre and to implement Donald Smith's excellent report on a national theatre. I am unaware of any argument from the Federation of Scottish Theatre, the Scottish Arts Council or anybody else that says, "Don't go ahead with the national theatre. Just give us the money for existing theatre infrastructure." The arguments that I have heard are that more money is needed for theatre in Scotland, but that equally the national theatre will be a productive part of that. Therefore, your suggestion, minister, and Mr Irvine's that there is some request to put the money into ordinary theatre and let the national theatre go hang strikes me as contrary to what I have heard from all the theatre and arts organisations. Indeed, it is absolutely contrary to the financial requests that the Scottish Arts Council has made to you.
On the contrary, nobody has suggested letting the national theatre go hang, least of all me. The representations that we have received from the theatre community are that it sees the priority as being investment in existing theatre infrastructure. The theatre community does not want to see the imposition of a national theatre in a way that would damage infrastructure. Normally, we have three-year running programmes for spending review periods, which would mean that we would look at 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. However, because of the linkages here we need to look at 2001-2002 and 2002-03, which we are doing.
I have a couple of points. The first relates to what we said earlier about golf and the development of school culture co-ordinators. One of the key issues that has come up in local authorities throughout Scotland is access to music and arts tuition and to instruments. Provision has historically been uneven. Admittedly, that is an issue for local authorities to address, but I wonder whether there is an overview among ministers about it. I wonder whether, over a period of time—three, five or seven years—there could be at least an opening up of the debate about resources for that kind of provision. That might be worth exploring. We have prioritised golf, but it strikes me that music and arts provision is also important for personal and social development.
Minister, I suggest that we take a series of questions in order to tie things up.
Minister, I was there when you launched the museums audit. How is that coming on and how does it fit into the budget plans?
I have some sympathy with the minister's reply to Mike Russell's question about a national theatre. In my files, I have a copy of a letter from the Federation of Scottish Theatres, which I am sure was sent to the rest of the committee. The letter implies the same thing that the minister said—that financial support for existing theatres is crucial if a national theatre is to build on that base. There is an implication that funding for a national theatre might be wasted without adequate further funding of existing theatres—that can certainly be read into the letter. I intended to take that up with the Federation of Scottish Theatres, but we are discussing it now.
I note that, in its new business plan, the board of Scottish Ballet and Scottish Opera is seeking an additional £350,000 to allow it to change its plans. That does not fit anywhere into the national institutions budget. Is the minister sympathetic to that request? Is it feasible? What is the present situation?
Frank McAveety asked about music tuition. With the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, we are developing guidance on music tuition and access to instrumentation in schools. I have been in contact with Jack McConnell about the implications that that might have for resources. I am concerned that some kids might have less access to music tuition and instrumentation in schools depending on where they live or which school they attend. I am anxious to ensure that there is equality of access throughout the education sector.
I am more than happy to furnish you with a copy of the wonderful document that we received today, minister. The committee is wary of signing bigger and bigger cheques, especially to national companies, without any comeback.