National Cultural Strategy
We now move on to a debate on motion S1M-1305, in the name of Sam Galbraith, on the national cultural strategy, and on two amendments to that motion. Those members who are not waiting to be cultured should leave quietly.
I am a cultured individual myself, Presiding Officer, and I am particularly delighted to open this debate. It is unlikely that Scotland's first national cultural strategy, "Creating our Future, Minding our Past", would have been prepared had it not been for the coming into being of this Parliament. It is fitting that members have the opportunity to discuss it now. It is also fitting that, at this stage, I should pay tribute to my colleague Rhona Brankin for her contribution. Much of the effort and work that was put into developing the strategy was due to her unstinting efforts, and the Parliament should recognise that.
"Creating our Future, Minding our Past" is, by its nature, a radical document. For the first time in its history, Scotland has a clear framework of objectives and actions to guide the development of its cultural life. It also gives a clear statement of the importance of cultural life to everyone in Scotland. The strategy dispels once and for all the mistaken assumption that culture is only for the elite few. Scotland's cultural life is broad and diverse and is for absolutely everyone in the land. Everyone can contribute to it and everyone can enjoy it. Our cultural sector makes a significant contribution to our economy—locally and nationally—and I want to emphasise that it is fundamental to the image of Scotland abroad.
Culture is not monolithic. It is fair to say that fiddles and electronic instruments can take their place alongside opera. Gaelic poetry and detective fiction also have a place, and we acknowledge the role of sport in our cultural life. I believe that the Parliament will want to commend and celebrate that breadth of cultural activity, and that it will share the Executive's view that our culture and its development have a significant role to play in promoting social justice and in education. Those are the central planks of the Executive's policy framework. The contribution that culture can play in each of them was a significant theme that emerged from the extensive consultation on which the document was based. Once again, I record our thanks for the 350 written responses and to the many people who turned up at a series of open consultative meetings in all parts of Scotland.
I stress that the strategy does not set out a detailed cultural development plan or manifesto, either generally or in each cultural area. That should address the point that is raised in Brian Monteith's amendment. Although some people have sought such a plan, I believe that to do so—and I agree with Brian on this point—would be utter folly and would quickly lead to cultural death and the end of the generation of culture. That is what Brian Monteith is talking about, but that is a separate issue. It is not what we set out to provide, and any assumption that that is the case is misplaced.
"Creating our Future, Minding our Past" does no more than provide a comprehensive framework of objectives to guide cultural development. Where the public sector has a role to play in making provision, the strategy is based fundamentally on the Executive's commitment to supporting and developing our cultural life in ways that widen access, promote education and develop excellence.
People throughout Scotland see the clear connection between culture and education and social justice. Culture can make such connections by giving people and communities ways to acquire and expand skills, giving them new insights into themselves and their communities. Most of all, culture can bring enjoyment into people's lives: the enjoyment of participation as an actor, musician, photographer or whatever and the enjoyment of being part of the audience.
The Executive wants to rise to the challenge and to work with other agencies to realise the potential contribution that culture can make. Since the publication of the strategy, we have been in close discussions with key agencies, working on implementing the key actions. The role of the national bodies and the local authorities is vital. An important stress of the strategy is to find better ways of working in partnership so that local and national activities complement one another and are not seen to be in conflict.
I can mention only a few of the key developments in this debate. I am particularly enthusiastic about the actions and the strategy identified in relation to education. Most important, we will pilot co-ordinators in schools whose role will be to champion culture in schools. People in those posts will work with teachers and children to realise the contribution that cultural activity can make to young people's learning and skills and to find ways of embedding cultural activity and opportunities in the school experience. That will go some way to develop our aim of enhancing education through culture. We are not adding on a cultural element; we are using culture to enhance education, self-esteem and self-development for the individual. We will work closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Arts Council to design and monitor the pilots, exploring a range of ways of building on what is already there and what has already been achieved in schools throughout Scotland.
I look forward to the detailed framework—which is being developed by the SAC—for our scheme for supporting excellence in the traditional arts. Too many voices over the years have said that our traditional arts, music in particular, are regarded or are treated as being inferior. I do not believe that that criticism is wholly valid—there is and has been significant support—but the new initiative will give traditional arts an opportunity to confirm their importance to continuing Scottish culture. I hope that, in many cases, the traditional arts will provide a basis for world leadership in the development of techniques in key areas. We have already supported the piping centre in Glasgow, which provides just such international leadership and excellence in its area.
I also look forward to the outcome of detailed feasibility work on the proposal for a national theatre. We seek a practical option to add to our theatrical activity and to raise its overall quality. This is not a proposal to build a new venue or to replace the dynamism of local companies with a single central performing or commissioning body. It will be important that what emerges builds on and enhances what we have and widens access to the highest-quality theatrical productions. If the study confirms a practical means of achieving that, I give the guarantee that additional finance will be available to make it happen.
Will the minister also guarantee that Scottish touring theatre companies will be considered? There is a bit of a crisis in Scottish touring theatre. The minister may remember, for example, that the SAC refused to provide further funding to the Wildcat theatre group last year.
Such decisions are a matter for the SAC. I remember well Wildcat, of which I was a director, as I was the minister when the decision was taken not to fund it any longer. We lived in interesting times then. Touring theatre is important and will continue to be considered by the Scottish Arts Council.
On heritage and museums, we are putting in hand actions with the Scottish Museums Council, the National Museums of Scotland and local authorities that will be of fundamental importance to our museums sector. We have already announced that funding will be available to fund structural change in the museums sector and to undertake an audit of collections throughout Scotland. We recognise that priority must be given to considering the position of industrial museums. We are examining specific proposals for a number of them at the moment. The key to taking those proposals forward will be the commitment of the relevant local authorities to the museums in their localities. I look forward to reporting further on that when our discussions are concluded.
With that assurance, and given that what the SNP has asked for is already in hand, I hope that the SNP will consider it possible to withdraw its amendment. However, I see that, in keeping with the SNP's usual policy of co-operation, Mike Russell is shaking his head. I await his contribution.
The minister should remember that we are the Opposition.
At the launch of the strategy, an initial funding package of £7.25 million was announced. Following the spending review, we will make available an additional £11.7 million to our national institutions over the next three years, including specific amounts to support the expansion of their important educational programmes and to meet the costs associated with additional activities that they have taken on in recent years.
We will also invest significant additional amounts in the arts through the Scottish Arts Council. At the time of the launch, we announced a £1.5 million programme to support excellence in the traditional arts. In addition, we will be increasing overall support for the SAC by £13.2 million over the next three years. That is the most significant increase in funding that the arts in Scotland has ever had. The resources will include support for the proposed national theatre for Scotland, should the present feasibility study come up with a practicable proposal. Depending on the outcome of that study, up to £1.5 million will be available for the first full year of the theatre in 2003-04 and up to £500,000 to support its start-up in the year before that.
To succeed in the 21st century, Scotland needs to foster the creativity and ingenuity of all its people. We want to ensure that we reflect the potential of the cultural dimension in all our policy development and place culture at the heart of all that the Executive does. The national cultural strategy provides a framework for achieving that.
The initiatives that I have mentioned briefly and the additional funding that I have described illustrate the breadth of our approach and our commitment to promoting excellence and wider access. Overall, the strategy is ambitious and forward looking. It is based on a carefully thought-out appraisal of what people have said about Scotland's culture. It provides a framework within which Scotland's culture can flourish, can be accessible to and enjoyed by all and can develop and exploit its international potential.
To achieve those objectives, many people across Scotland need to work together at a local and national level. I commend the strategy to everyone. The Executive is committed to playing its part and I am sure that the Scottish Parliament will also want to make a continuing and positive contribution. I look forward to hearing what members have to say about this document and its importance to Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the strength and breadth of cultural activity in Scotland and the important contribution it makes to Scotland's economy and to the quality of life of people throughout Scotland; considers that public support and encouragement of cultural development should be guided by a framework which widens opportunities to participate, promotes education in and through culture and supports and celebrates excellence in all areas of cultural activity, and therefore welcomes the publication by the Scottish Executive of Creating Our Future, Minding Our Past, Scotland's first National Cultural Strategy.
I welcome the new culture team and give a regretful wave to Rhona Brankin as she leaves both the department and, I note, the chamber. I wish the Minister for Environment, Sport and Culture well in his role. Not only is he the new minister with responsibility for culture, he was the old one as well—he carries his portfolio with him. I welcome him and the new deputy minister at his side.
I also welcome the cultural strategy document. There is no great harm in it, but there is no great virtue in it either. It is a disappointing document. The cultural champions involved laboured long and hard and took a lot of evidence before producing a clamjamfrie of over-design—a bùrach, to use a Gaelic word—and not much else besides. There are some major flaws in the document's proposals and I will concentrate on them.
When he launched the consultative document in the chamber, Sam Galbraith—the former minister and the present minister—said that the national cultural strategy was
"not an exercise in re-engineering bureaucracy."—[Official Report, 2 September 1999; Vol 2, c 148.]
However, the people who produced this document were not listening to him, because it contains 64 pledges, including four feasibility studies, four reviews and three audits. In addition, there is a commitment to identify a contribution, another commitment to measuring and reporting progress and even the announcement of a new ministerial committee. The proposals are over-bureaucratic. I wish that those who were in charge of the document had listened to the minister, as that would have made it better reading. It is an exercise in missed opportunities. It has no vision, no excitement and no passion.
As with most things, when the Executive hears the word "culture", it reaches for its management tools. All we have in the document is a set of management tools. There are no radical solutions to undertake the real task that faces Scotland, which is to involve the whole of Scotland in creativity and to free creativity in Scotland from the burden of bureaucracy. Those key objectives are nowhere to be found.
My colleagues will deal with a series of concerns, including the national theatre. A major opportunity has been missed. There have been three studies on a national theatre and it would be perfectly possible to move quickly towards the establishment of one. Unfortunately, the matter has been delayed again.
The document proposes the creation of a form of educational life involving what are called cultural champions in Scottish schools. Every teacher to whom I have spoken about this has found it an extraordinary concept—one teacher described it as plain daft. There are many teachers in schools who are cultural champions and are keen to release the creativity of all their students. Cultural champions are likely just to get in the way. We should be encouraging every teacher, child and school to get involved in creativity and culture. To ghettoise culture into cultural champions in schools is a retrograde step. I hope that in summing up the minister might consider that it is a step too far.
Despite Mr Galbraith's request, we oppose the Executive—as Dr Ewing rightly said, we are here to oppose—on museums, because his commitment was vague and unspecific. If he could give me a specific commitment to the future of the key industrial museums, of course we would consider withdrawing our amendment. Local authority funding is a difficult issue for industrial museums. Local authorities have been kept perpetually short of funds by the Administration and its predecessor. To squeeze more money out of local authorities for local and industrial museums would simply not be possible in the present climate.
Industrial museums, of which there are only a small number, need a commitment to ensure that they have a future. Yesterday, the Museum of Lead Mining at Wanlockhead closed for the winter season. It is unlikely to reopen next year unless an extra £10,000 can be found for the costs of running the buildings during the winter. In Wanlockhead, winters are winters. Duncan McNeil looks surprised at that—he lives down on the balmy shore of the Clyde. The museum has in its care the second oldest working men's library in Europe; if that building is not heated, the collection will deteriorate. The museum has asked repeatedly for the £10,000. I hope to hear today a commitment to providing that money.
Five staff were made redundant at the Scottish Maritime Museum in Irvine on 1 October and the museum was closed, except for the cafeteria. By the end of the year, 31 more staff will go, including its inspired curator Jim Tildesley. There has to be a solution to keep museums such as the Scottish Maritime Museum going until the national audit takes place.
In its annual review, the Scottish Museums Council, which is holding its museum of the year awards next week, asks for
"a stable revenue funding base for a network of museums, including non-national museums".
That is what we need. The Executive strategy document contains pledges for an audit and for a fund for reconstruction, but not a penny of that money appears to be forthcoming. What will happen—in the best Sir Humphrey tradition—is that museums will close while restructuring goes on so that there will be less need to restructure because there will be fewer museums. The situation is appalling. If the minister can give a commitment today to providing money for those museums, we will not press our amendment; if he cannot, we will press it.
Although the national cultural strategy is disappointing, at least it exists. It is important that the Parliament and the Executive pay attention to culture. Last year, in concluding the debate in which the cultural strategy was launched, Rhona Brankin said:
"The main aim . . . is to establish . . . clear, understandable objectives."—[Official Report, 2 September 1999; Vol 2, c 182.]
If members can find clear, understandable objectives in this document, they must be reading the Gaelic version rather than the English version. There is nothing clear in it, there is little that is understandable and the objectives are all in new Labour management speak.
When I spoke in the national cultural strategy debate last year, I quoted from the document that set the consultation in motion. At the heart of that document, in the very middle pages, is a quotation from George Campbell Hay. It reads:
"Fad na bliadhna rè gach ràithe
Gach la's gach ciaradh dhomh
Is e Alba nan Gall 's nan Gàidheal
Is gàire, is blàths is beatha dhomh".
The English version is:
"All year long each season through
Each day and each fall of dusk for me
It is Scotland, Highland and Lowland
That is laughter and warmth and life for me".
Culture is about laughter and warmth and life. The job of a Government is to try to ensure that the context of culture can create that laughter, that warmth and that life. I hoped against hope that the Government might manage to do that in its national cultural strategy. I was rightly sceptical; it did not happen. I want the Executive to find a way to create that context, as our amendment suggests. If that can be done, it will release the river of creativity that runs through Scotland.
That is what we need to do. I am afraid that it has not been done yet. I hope that it can be done. If it is not done by the current Administration, this SNP Administration in waiting will do it, and we will succeed. [Interruption.] There was a hollow laugh from the minister. The biblical phrase is:
"Like the crackling of thorns under the pot, so is the laughter of fools."
The Executive's time is passing; our time is coming.
I move amendment S1M-1305.1, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:
"calls upon the Scottish Executive to tackle with urgency problems such as the impending closure of key industrial museums in Scotland whilst also developing and implementing a vibrant and accessible vision of the place of the arts and heritage in the lives of the people of Scotland."
I, too, congratulate Allan Wilson on his appointment. I am disappointed that the rules of our procedural equivalent of the Union of European Football Associations meant that he could not make his debut in this debate. I know Allan to be not only a man of culture, but a good sport. His elevation to the front benches became inevitable when he was the only Labour back bencher not to be the subject of media speculation about who would be in the new Executive.
My first point is simply on the cost of publishing, distributing and launching "Creating our future: minding our past, Scotland's national cultural strategy", which is an unusually shaped document. The total cost was £75,000, despite the fact that it is already available on the worldwide web. That money could do a lot of good in village halls across Scotland, where culture is played out in everyday people's lives. Village halls are the places where real people do real things that they enjoy and cherish—badminton, women's institute demonstrations or even the dreaded line dancing.
It is regrettable that, although the document declares that
"culture can be enjoyed by everyone in Scotland",
its whole tone is institutionally urban and therefore, I believe, elitist.
What?
I said "institutionally urban".
I heard it; I just did not believe it.
Oh, well—I do.
I raised that point when we last debated this subject. Rhona Brankin, the then Deputy Minister for Culture and Sport, assured us that she had
"competed in the Black Isle show on many occasions",—[Official Report, 2 September 1999; Vol 2, c 182.]
but that may not be among Mr Allan Wilson's many attributes. The document does not recognise the ordinary, day-to-day activities that make Scotland the place that it is.
I do not wish to spend too long rehearsing arguments from that debate, but, in the south of Scotland, events such as annual common ridings or ridings of the marches are the principal cultural events in the communities where they take place. Thousands of people from the area around Langholm, for example, return to the town every year and reconnect with their community. I wait with some trepidation to see how such events will fare in the audit of
"all public support for arts and culture in terms of its social benefits, including its planned contribution to social inclusion",
as page 53 of the document states. Traditional events such as those that I have mentioned do not fit into that sort of packaging, which smacks of political correctness gone mad. People who run events such as a common riding want other support: they want the local police force to be funded properly in order to provide the necessary support for road closures and public safety and they want the local authority to be properly funded so that roads are maintained and litter is picked up afterwards. They do not want or need state interference with important traditions. The fundamental problem with the whole exercise is that it is proceeding on the premise that the Executive can and should control and manage our culture.
I accept that the cultural strategy document contains a number of good ideas and possible improvements to the management of existing structures. I am particularly pleased that there is a commitment to maximising the potential of information and communications technology to enhance and widen cultural participation and access. I recently visited Blacksburg in Virginia, the most wired community in the world—87 per cent of people are online. That has encouraged more people to participate in cultural events, rather than reinforcing an anorak image of people staying at home.
It is disappointing that the document does not recognise the wider issue of science and technological development as part of our culture. For Scotland, with its famous sons Alexander Graham Bell and Alexander Fleming, science is as much a part of our culture as the contributions of many of the people pictured in the document are. Science, like rural life and our living and working environment, is part of culture and not some separate entity. That is why industrial museums such as the one at Wanlockhead and the clipper ship the City of Adelaide are so important.
As for the pictures in the strategy document, I was particularly disappointed not to see any of Robert Burns, who many Scots believe made the pre-eminent contribution to Scottish culture of the past millennium. Had we not had a change of minister, the Burns Federation and I would have met Rhona Brankin today to discuss how the Scottish Executive, through its tourism and culture departments, might begin to recognise the part that Burns should play not only in our social and cultural development, but in economic development in Scotland. That has been given no real attention.
As someone who firmly believes that minorities should be allowed to participate in sports and interests of their choosing without state interference, I have no problem with the Scottish Executive's promotion of unicycling, which takes up a whole page of the document—page 36. However, I have a problem with the belief that Scottish culture can be compartmentalised, packaged, audited and delivered to targets. Regrettably, the cultural strategy caters for an urban elite and for politically correct gurus. There is nothing in it for the ordinary person, to preserve and enhance the culture of Scotland.
I move amendment S1M-1305.2, to leave out from "public support" to end and insert:
"culture in Scotland is the product of our nation's artistic, political and economic history and the spontaneous and independent interactions of individuals and organisations and that ownership of Scottish culture lies with Scotland's people; believes that cultural excellence will best develop in an open and free society and that the role of the Scottish Executive should be to preserve and promote our historical record and artistic achievement and to foster an open society where new contributions can be made without requiring endorsement by politicians or producer groups, and further considers that the Executive's Cultural Strategy document represents a missed opportunity to clarify the limitations of government in Scotland's culture."
The Scottish Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the cultural strategy. We believe that the arts should be valued in a civilised society. The arts are life enhancing, confidence building and help to give individuals, communities and the nation a sense of identity. We believe that it is a function of Government to create a climate in which the arts can flourish—not to direct, but to ensure that all aspects of arts and culture are accessible to everyone.
We cannot accept the laissez-faire attitude that Brian Monteith takes. Rural culture and culture in deprived areas would wither away if it were not for the properly directed support of central and local government. David Mundell talked about not minding minorities, but minorities would not be catered for by arts run on purely capitalistic economic terms.
Nor do we believe that culture should be narrowly nationalist. I do not think that Michael Russell meant that; I do not mean to be controversial. There are international and personal dimensions to creativity that cross boundaries and that should be recognised.
I agree that culture should be broad and internationalist. There is nothing narrow about the nationalism represented on the SNP benches.
I accept that, on this occasion.
Ian Jenkins is more generous than his coalition partners.
The document is a wide-ranging statement of our position, aspirations and intentions. I hope that it will provide the conditions in which our already lively cultural scene can thrive and grow.
The strategy contains many welcome measures that will allow us to take stock of the situation—the audit and review of museums and the promised review of the role of the Scottish Arts Council. I do not say that in any threatening way; I just think that it is time to consider the ways those bodies function. The strategy has welcome statements of intent about promoting creativity, celebrating our heritage and ensuring that there is an effective national support framework for culture. There is recognition of the value of our cultural industries and the potential for cultural tourism. Above all, we can welcome the commitment to inclusiveness—in the desire to allow and encourage culture to flourish in all geographical areas of Scotland and in the rejection of exclusiveness and cultural snobbery in promoting and embracing artistic excellence in all cultural fields, including music, as was mentioned earlier.
On Friday, I gave a presentation for a chap who had been in Peebles silver band for 50 years. I had thought that he was younger than me, but he had started when he was 10, so he is just a bit older than me. The week before, I was at Scottish Opera Go Round in Galashiels. Not so very long ago, in sad circumstances, I listened to Cathy Peattie and Aly Bain. The other night on the radio, I heard a kind of Highland version of acid house, called acid croft. Who are we to say that any one of those is more important or more valuable than another? We must support people who wish to practise and be involved in such things.
Using this document as a starting point, the time has come to move away from the strategy, with its abstractions and its slight vagueness, to the practicalities. When I speak about these things, I find it hard not to talk about the culture of gardening—horticulture—as well. We talk about letting things flourish: I see in this strategy the chance to sow seeds in our education system. I welcome new moves on music tuition. Nobody should be stopped from getting such tuition because of poverty. I would like all music tuition in Scotland to be free, and I hope that we can move quickly in that direction.
I am interested in the idea of cultural champions in schools. When I was an assistant head, I ran an activities week when the timetable was suspended. I sent kids to Edinburgh Castle, to the theatre and all over the place. If someone has that specific job, someone else will be relieved of administrative duties. I do not mind somebody batting for culture in schools—I am a little worried about the details, but I do not deny the need for such a post.
I would like to promote drama in schools, for all sorts of reasons that I do not have time to go into. Drama is life enhancing. Further up the educational ladder, I would like to promote courses in television and film such as the one in the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama. Sam Galbraith knows that I support the Scottish Youth Theatre.
The Presiding Officer is indicating that I should wind up. I will hurry. We have to consider our heritage—the past. I support what Mike Russell says. I hope that ways will be found to support the Scottish industrial museums, including the Scottish Mining Museum at Newtongrange.
If the Presiding Officer will forgive me, I would like to quote a few lines from Norman MacCaig, which seem appropriate when we are talking about maintaining our heritage and remembering individuals—politicians, musicians, poets—who have helped to shape our lives.
All right.
The lines could refer metaphorically to memories of our fathers and grandfathers in shipbuilding and coal mining.
The lines, please.
They could refer to Norman MacCaig himself. I thought of them—
Let us hear them, then. Come on.
I thought of them at the time of Donald Dewar's death.
"On that stormy night
A top branch broke off on the biggest tree in my garden.
It is still up there
Though its leaves are withered black among the green
The living branches won't let it fall".
In nurturing our cultural present and future, we must not let fall the great things of our past.
Cultural strategy encompasses a wide range of issues but, today, I would like to speak about two specific ones: the concept of arts for all and the Scottish Maritime Museum.
I would like to begin by congratulating my good colleague from North Ayrshire, Allan Wilson, on his promotion to the Executive. It has been a significant week for culture in North Ayrshire, which brings me to the concept of arts for all. As well as Allan's appointment, North Ayrshire junior schools choir performed a specially written opera, "Turn of the Tide" at the millennium dome on Monday. The project is a partnership between Scottish Opera and North Ayrshire schools, which traces the history of our community maritime traditions and our connections with seafaring nations throughout Europe.
Earlier this year, the children from the choir visited Finland to perform with young people from Helsinki as part of the city of culture celebrations. Over the next couple of days, 1,000 children—including Finnish children—will perform the opera, somewhat aptly, in the Scottish Maritime Museum in Irvine. The local community has responded in a remarkable way. Although I have plugged the event today, there are no tickets left for any of the eight performances. Heritage, education, international exchange, community and culture show that this project is a good example of joined-up working, as I am sure the minister will agree.
The event demonstrates several themes that run through the national cultural strategy. Opera is an art form that is often cited as being elitist and is seen as being inaccessible to local communities, but the project involves a group of ordinary children from ordinary schools and backgrounds performing and excelling in that art form in a quite extraordinary way. Making the arts accessible and inclusive is a far from hopeless cause. The major reason for the success of the project has been the relevance of the work to the children and their heritage. The opera has been integrated into the school curriculum through its musical and historical content. When the project is concluded, it will form the basis of teaching packs to develop what has been learned.
The minister has mentioned the concept of school culture co-ordinators. Having discussed the matter yesterday with officers of North Ayrshire Council, I know that it will be welcomed. I would like to put down a marker and say that when the minister decides on pilot projects for such co-ordinators, I hope that areas such as North Ayrshire, which has placed so great an emphasis on the arts, education and community, will be considered.
Having recognised the tremendous achievement in North Ayrshire, it would be remiss of me not to mention the difficulties faced by the Scottish Maritime Museum, which is hosting the event over the next few days. I should also mention the world's oldest clipper ship, the Carrick/City of Adelaide. The minister will be aware that the museum closed its doors as a tourist attraction a month ago. If funding for future financial years is not secured by March, that closure will be permanent. The national cultural strategy envisaged a long-term solution for our national museums, starting with an audit of Scotland's museum collections. Regrettably, by the time the audit has been completed, the Scottish Maritime Museum will be closed. It is essential that short-term contingency plans are put in place and I would welcome the minister's comments on the matter.
Allied to the future of the Scottish Maritime Museum is the future of the Carrick/City of Adelaide. I am sure the minister is aware that that is a cause dear to my heart and one that has captured the imagination of ordinary people throughout the world. More than 100 objections, from all corners of the globe, have been lodged against an order for demolition.
The title of the strategy document is "Creating our future: minding our past". It has been a privilege to speak in the Parliament today and to celebrate the achievement of young people in my area. This is about creating and investing in our future, but we owe it to past and future generations to mind our past also. I trust that the minister will ensure that the cause of the Carrick and the Scottish Maritime Museum will not be lost.
In a members' debate earlier this year, the then Deputy Minister for Culture and Sport, Rhona Brankin, assured us that the national cultural strategy would at last address Scotland's traditional arts. We now have the strategy, but I do not feel that it does. There are more fine words, although not that many, about Scotland's traditional culture. In her introduction, Rhona Brankin says:
"The development of the Cultural Strategy has been a stimulating and invigorating experience".
I am pleased about that, but there should be stimulation and invigoration of Scotland's traditional arts.
Page 17 of the document tells us that
"excellence in the traditional arts"
is what is being promoted. We already have excellence in our traditional arts; it is the promotion and funding that is the problem. I asked this question before, but it was never answered, so I will ask it again: why does the core funding for the municipal arts contribute substantially to the wages and fees of performers of those art forms while there is little support for the performers of traditional music? Adequate core funding is what is required. Let the practitioners of the traditional arts spend their time doing what they do best, which is not administration and filling in lottery applications, but performing, teaching and passing on their art.
We learn on page 19 of the brochure that the Executive will
"Investigate the feasibility of identifying national centres of excellence in traditional arts".
What on earth does that mean? I do not know. No one in the traditional arts whom I have spoken to knows what it means either. There is a worry that excellence implies a selection process, but how will it be decided who is included and who is excluded? I ask the minister to explain in plain language what
"Investigate the feasibility of identifying"
actually means.
The strategy document, which is welcomed by the SNP, reflects culture as part of the education portfolio—an admirable and sensible grouping of responsibilities. Education and culture are inextricably linked and, rightly, the strategy wishes to extend young people's opportunities to learn instruments within and outwith the school setting. Traditional instruments—and I include voice as an instrument—must be given their rightful place. Teachers and examiners who are skilled in the traditional techniques must be identified. It took a long fight to convince the establishment that traditional music should be examined at all. Our Parliament should commit to ensuring that traditional music is given its rightful place and importance. Pilot schemes are not enough.
We are talking about our country's heritage, but we are committing only £1.5 million over three years. Members should compare that with the rescue package—funding that was taken from education, mark you, by the minister last year—that was given to Scottish Opera, which allowed it to produce Wagner's ring cycle. What a difference to the teaching of traditional arts and music in our schools that £3 million could have made.
Earlier, the minister outlined further consultation plans. I look for more reassurances from the Executive this time. I ask for a commitment to a distinctly Scottish cultural strategy—and by that I do not mean that we should be insular or parochial in our cultural outlook; I contend that to understand and cherish other cultures we must understand and cherish our own.
I would like to use this short time to focus on the heritage aspect of the Executive's cultural strategy. In doing so, I will use as an example a museum that I visited only last Monday and which Mike Russell mentioned: the Museum of Lead Mining at Wanlockhead in Upper Nithsdale. It is by no means just a museum of artefacts. It is a living, breathing example of great historic and educational importance nationally; it is also of enormous social and economic benefit to Upper Nithsdale.
Due to the decline in its traditional industries, the area now suffers more than twice the national average level of unemployment and substantial deprivation. Consequently, local communities lack certainty and confidence about their future sustainability. However, they do not simply sit back and wait for the Government to come to their aid, or accept that there is no way forward. A recent survey—Kirkconnell 2000—achieved a remarkable response rate of almost 70 per cent and flagged up several key points that the community wishes to explore. A couple of months ago, I attended a meeting at which the working of the miners regeneration fund was explained. That meeting positively bristled with ideas and projects to try to regenerate the area.
A further project is called deals on wheels. It involves a community bus that is entirely funded, operated and maintained by local voluntary effort. The volunteers ask for nothing in return for their effort, save the satisfaction of knowing that they are helping people less fortunate than themselves. The community does not hold out the begging bowl at every opportunity. Rather, it takes pride in trying to help itself, as rural communities so often do. However, it is deeply troubled at the prospect of losing the Museum of Lead Mining, which is its most important asset.
Although the museum is important to the future economy of Upper Nithsdale, it is of greater importance that the Scottish Executive takes action to preserve Scotland's industrial heritage and the history of its working people. It is not right that important cultural facilities such as the Museum of Lead Mining must rely on the generosity of already financially beleaguered local authorities for survival. Dumfries and Galloway Council has already said that it will be unable to maintain its previous commitment to the museum in the next financial year. Even last year, despite that commitment, staff had to volunteer to work for some months on half salary, to allow the museum to survive. They showed real commitment.
In the short term, it is imperative that the Scottish Executive takes action to ensure that Scotland's industrial heritage museums do not close because of short-term cash flow problems. The minister said that the Executive is allocating millions for an audit of such museums. A tiny percentage of that money would ensure their survival. As David Mundell said, the cultural strategy document cost more than £70,000 to produce. If that sum were added to Wanlockhead's existing support, it could keep going for about 10 more years.
The museum has suffered, as has all rural Scotland, because of the drop in tourist numbers—they have fallen by 17 per cent in the past year alone. That is not the fault of the museum, but it could lead to its closure. We believe that the Scottish Executive must put in place funding provision that ensures the preservation, protection and promotion of these important museums, to allow future generations to gain insight into Scotland's industrial heritage. I would also venture that such support could be delivered directly from the Scottish Executive, through the Scottish Museums Council. There is a precedent for that, as some £127,000 went to the Scottish Mining Museum by that route in the previous financial year.
Given that the new audit of museums ordered by the Scottish Executive will not report for 18 months to two years, complacency is no option. Wanlockhead has about two months left. The Executive must act now, or some of our most important industrial heritage museums may be lost to the nation for good.
Thank you, Presiding Officer, for giving me the opportunity to speak for the first time from the back benches. [Applause.] Members were not meant to cheer.
We are.
Join the club.
Like many who have spoken in today's debate, I would like to take the opportunity to make a plea for one of the important museums in my constituency, the Scottish Fisheries Museum in Anstruther.
Having enough confidence in our culture and history to be willing to make the commitment to preserve and promote it is something of a test for the Parliament. Not only the Scottish Parliament has a role in that; local councils play an essential part in promoting local arts and culture, which often benefit communities in a direct and visible way.
However, as we know, local government has suffered in recent years from Tory spending cuts that have had a direct effect on community facilities, libraries, local museums and galleries. Library book funds, music tuition in schools and grants to community groups and voluntary museums and galleries have all been relatively easy targets for hard-pressed councillors looking for savings.
Local authority funding for cultural services amounts to some £227 million a year, compared with the Scottish Executive's funding of £128 million. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities estimates that cultural funding by local authorities fell by 8.7 per cent between 1994 and 1997.
Iain Smith mentions COSLA and local authorities. We know that local authorities have a statutory duty to provide moneys for the cultural strategy. If local authorities cannot provide those moneys, would it not be appropriate for the Scottish Executive to put extra money into local authorities?
The important point that I was about to come on to is that the Scottish Executive is providing more funding for local government. There will be record increases in local government spending over the next three years, which must be welcome. That funding will enable councils to start to reverse the trend of cuts in spending on our cultural facilities. In addition, the creation of three-year budgets for our councils will enable them to provide more secure funding for the cultural sector.
I welcome the fact that today there has been support from all sides of the chamber for our industrial museums. In my constituency, the Scottish Fisheries Museum in Anstruther provides an excellent facility that is well used by local people, schoolchildren and tourists alike. It also employs 13 people, is well supported by 73 volunteers and is a vital tourist attraction, helping to attract many visitors to Anster and the east neuk of Fife.
On 18 April, Rhona Brankin, the then Deputy Minister for Culture and Sport, opened the museum's new wing and the project Zulu gallery, which enhance the important role that the museum plays in observing and illustrating our fishing heritage. That role is important because we should not forget the decline of Scotland's traditional industries. Museums set down markers along the path that has led us to where we are today. They illustrate much about the way of life in Scotland and where our culture and heritage come from. Museums are a valuable educational resource, and that role could be enhanced greatly if they were given the security of funding that they deserve.
In Scotland, we have been good at preserving for posterity the work of our numerous great artists, but often we fail to recognise that our working culture is part of what makes us Scottish. Secure, long-term funding is the key. The performing arts are well funded—and rightly so—but our working and industrial heritage is often funded on an ad hoc basis, relying on sympathetic local authorities.
A small proportion of the funding that goes to the national performing arts companies would enhance considerably the position of industrial museums. For example, the Scottish Museums Council estimates that the nine industrial museums require just £2.5 million over the next five years to have a secure future. That amount is equivalent to around 4 per cent of the money that goes into funding the national companies every year.
I welcome the cultural strategy's recognition of the importance of our museums. I also welcome the national audit, but it is still unclear how it is to be conducted and when it will be completed. At the Education, Culture and Sport Committee on 20 September, it was suggested that the audit might be completed by October 2001. However, I now understand that it may not even start until April 2001, with a completion date of a year later. Quite simply, that may be too late for some of our industrial museums.
I hope that when the minister sums up the debate he will be able to assure members in all parts of the chamber that support will be forthcoming to help keep our industrial museums open until the audit is complete and to help ensure that the valuable national assets that those museums look after for Scotland can be preserved for the benefit of future generations of Scots.
I welcome the cultural strategy. Scotland's culture does not stand on its own, as it impinges on education, tourism, the economy and social inclusion. It is a rich tapestry of all that is good and, sometimes, of the not so good, in Scotland. Four minutes is not enough time to discuss fully the strategy or its potential. I will try to pick out some of the areas that I believe it is important to highlight.
We heard a little about traditional folk music. The promotion of excellence in the traditional arts is welcome, as is the promised £1.5 million over the next three years. That cash should be used to develop support for grass-roots, locally based, sustainable educational projects throughout Scotland. Money should also be targeted to support our traditional artists, to enable them to perform in Scotland and overseas. Our musicians are very much in demand overseas but, as Sheena Wellington says, they should go as cultural ambassadors, not economic refugees.
As far as tourism is concerned, cultural and folk festivals, gatherings such as Celtic Connections and the international film festival all play a vital role in the Scottish economy.
The arts can play a very important role in social inclusion, which I would prefer to call community development. Organisations such as Adult Learners Project in Edinburgh provide excellent examples of that. In my area, the community training and development unit based in Falkirk, which does work throughout the old Central Region, is a good example of how arts can be used in community development. The unit employs media such as film to discuss issues; for example, "The Full Monty" was used to discuss social deprivation and to encourage people who would never consider responding to a Government document to think about what should be included in the social inclusion paper. Through discussion of films such as "My Name Is Joe", people explored how drama can be used to highlight issues such as drugs and the choices that face people in our communities. That is what a cultural strategy should be examining. Furthermore, we should employ Scots language and song to promote both active citizen work and pride and confidence in our traditions.
The fèis movement is doing wonderful work to bring traditional music to children and young people but, as is the case with many of our traditional arts, funding is a real issue. I hope that the cultural strategy can change that.
Last week, I attended the opening of the new Bo'ness Academy, the highlight of which was the wonderful brass, strings and pipes of the school band. The former mining village of Bo'ness boasts no fewer than five bands for children in the area who want to expand their love of music. That is what I call community arts and it is important to support it.
Unlike Iain Smith, I do not think that performing arts such as jazz, traditional and popular music are well funded and it seems a great pity that they appear to have less value than the work of the national companies. Those arts are just as valid as opera, ballet and the work of national orchestras so, as one of his first tasks, the minister might consider commissioning a review of the Arts Council to ensure that all the arts in Scotland are valued. I look forward to further discussion of the cultural strategy over the coming months.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. Unfortunately, the Executive has brought something dull and disappointing to us for consideration. Although I support the strategic objectives outlined in the Executive document, the framework for action that it describes is terribly hidebound and lacks ambition and imagination.
In looking to the future, the strategy should be all about creating opportunity and encouraging excellence. In that context, I am deeply disturbed that the document makes no mention of the groundbreaking project to establish a purpose-built school of music and recording technology—or SMART—in Ayr.
SMART will be a world-class centre of excellence for popular music. Equipped with state-of-the-art technology, it will provide a creative environment unique in Scotland and Europe offering the highest-quality professional training to talented people and combining music performance, recording technology and music business management in a co-ordinated structure.
The school will provide a curriculum of vocational courses at further and higher education levels relevant to the needs of the popular music industry. Furthermore, it will place Scotland and Scottish students at the forefront of a rapidly expanding industry which in UK terms is worth £3.6 billion a year, accounts for 7.2 per cent of the world market and employs more than 100,000 people. It will do so because it will meet the critical needs of the industry as identified by the creative industry task force set up by Chris Smith.
Those needs are, first, to provide business support and guidance for the many small independent companies on which the industry relies; and, secondly, to ensure that musicians and others in the industry receive the training that they require. The new technologies coming rapidly to the fore mean that such needs are expanding just as rapidly.
The potential for Scotland of the SMART project has been widely recognised. In June, Bob Crawford, the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, wrote to assure me that SMART was
"already positioned as a key infrastructure project for Ayrshire and Scotland in our creative industries cluster action plan".
Scottish Enterprise is a key investor in the project, along with South Ayrshire Council, the University of Paisley and Ayr College. Why has there been no commitment from the Scottish Executive? Could it be that the Executive is embarrassed by its failure to assist with the capital funding of the project, and that SMART is an illustration of how the current devolution settlement cannot ensure an effective national support framework for culture? I refer again to Bob Crawford's letter, in which he states:
"I share your concerns at the delay in securing capital funding for this exciting project . . . despite the SMART building design and educational model being commended as innovative developments . . . the resulting deferral by the Scottish Arts Council of the partnerships capital funding application meant we also lost the opportunity to secure capital funding last year from Strathclyde European partnership."
The cold fact is that lottery funds that are available to the Scottish Arts Council for distribution to arts capital projects have been cut back so drastically that the SAC is no longer in a position to core-fund major capital projects. That is in sharp contrast to the position in England, where massive amounts of lottery funding continue to be poured in. They include £25 million for the South Bank centre in London and £11 million for a national museum of music in Sheffield. The Arts Council has set aside a staggering £43 million for a regional arts centre in Gateshead. By comparison, Scotland is on starvation rations, with only £9.8 million in lottery funds available to the Scottish Arts Council for distribution to capital projects this year.
The minister must address that inequality of funding as a matter of priority. In particular, he must challenge the totally unfair and deeply biased practice of top-slicing funds available to the arts for so-called national projects, invariably to the benefit of England, and London in particular. As long as the purse strings of this Parliament are held in London, ambitions will be curbed and opportunities denied to our people. That is nowhere more evident than in the creative arts and industry.
I hope that the minister and the Executive have the courage to confront their Westminster counterparts on this issue. They will sell Scotland and their own aspirations short if they fail to do that.
We have roughly a minute and a half left. I will call Kate MacLean if she can confine herself to that time.
I will try, although it is very unusual for me to be able to limit myself to speaking for such a short time.
I welcome many of the principles that are contained in the national cultural strategy, particularly the reference to the role that the arts can play in social inclusion and regeneration. I was very supportive of the consultation that took place, which involved dialogue not only with the usual suspects—as has happened in the past—but with a wide range of interested individuals and organisations.
Although I support the Executive motion, I find the final result of the exercise slightly disappointing. The strategy is like a big sponge. It soaks up everything and accepts it as culture, which is fine, but it fails to prioritise sufficiently. It is difficult to see how the strategy fits in with the emphasis on wider participation and using the arts as a tool for social inclusion and regeneration.
At the meeting that was held in Dundee, one young person expressed genuine—and, I think, justified—concern about the lack of funding for popular music in Scotland. That was wholly justified if we recall that currently Scottish Opera receives £6 million and the Royal Scottish National Orchestra receives £4 million, whereas popular music receives £8,000. I hope that in his summing-up the minister can reassure me that the Scottish Executive recognises that for young people popular music is a route to other cultural forms, as well as an important part of Scottish culture in its own right, and that I have simply overlooked it in the strategy.
I hope that the strategy can develop more over the coming months and years and that it can become bolder. Some years ago, Ireland re-examined its cultural strategy. The Government listened to the Irish people to find out what was relevant to them, and invested heavily in music. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should follow the Irish example and ditch our national opera company, but the Irish Government did listen to what people were saying. If we have a larger cake that is eaten up almost entirely by the same organisations, with everybody else scrabbling about at the bottom for the crumbs that are left, I cannot see how we can achieve the strategy's admirable aims.
I welcome the commitment to the possibility of creating a national theatre company for Scotland. However, if the cultural strategy is for the whole of Scotland, there should be an assumption that, as the other national companies are based in either Edinburgh or Glasgow, the national theatre company should be located outwith those two cities. My colleague John McAllion and I will strongly support a community-based bid from Dundee for the national theatre company to be based there.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on our national cultural strategy.
Our national culture must be cherished and nurtured, as it continues to embrace so many diverse customs and traditions that have been hewn and formed us into a proud and united Scottish nation. Our heritage and culture, of which we can all be proud, consists of a unique and intricate jigsaw that includes our built and natural environment, language, music, arts, sports and much more. It creates for us all a beautiful mosaic of identity, people and place that we all know and love as Scotland.
Does Mr Munro agree that while that is true, some parts need strengthening from time to time? A commitment to secure status for Gaelic would considerably strengthen the Gaelic element. I am sure that Mr Munro will use his good offices to ensure that the Executive takes that on board.
I am sure that Michael Russell knows my sentiments of support for Gaelic, which are equally as strong as his own. That debate will continue until we achieve the success that we all desire.
I accept that much has been—and is being—done to support and extend our national heritage. I suggest that more support be given to music in schools and to our indigenous sports.
It is hard to quantify the benefits of music tuition to a child, in terms of both their enjoyment and their personal development. I am concerned about the decreasing number of local authorities that still offer free music tuition. I hope that the Executive can be encouraged, for the benefit and continuance of our national heritage, to give that serious consideration.
We have just celebrated our annual national Mod at Dunoon. As members will know, it is a presentation and appreciation of the best of our Gaelic language, music and culture, which attracts an international audience and participants from all groups and backgrounds. This year, the Mod programme was innovative in that it incorporated a shinty/hurling festival, which extended over three days. It afforded the Irish and Scottish culture an opportunity to be appreciated and enjoyed. It also brought a welcome boost to the economy of the area in the off season.
We recently sent a team of international shinty players to represent Scotland at a shinty/hurling match in the west of Ireland. A crowd in excess of 50,000 attended the match. I am sad to say that Scotland lost the game, but I am happy to say that it was the first time that we had lost in seven years. I am not surprised that we lost as our players had to find their own way to Glasgow and back and meet the cost. They also had to hand in their strips when they had finished playing in Ireland. What a way to treat an international shinty team on the international stage.
I raise shinty in this debate because sport is woven into the fabric of our culture. The cultural strategy does not recognise that, especially with regard to shinty, which I consider to be the greatest of all sports.
Much of the world of shinty has survived only through the dedicated support of volunteers and fundraisers within those communities, who stoutly try to retain and defend their culture and tradition. This week, shinty has been dealt another blow with the announcement that the sponsorship of £6,000 from the Bank of Scotland has been withdrawn. That might not seem a large sum in relation to other sports, but it is significant for the survival of shinty.
Our partnership agreement pledges, among other things, to invest in Scotland's diverse cultural life and heritage and to support the Gaelic language and culture. It also recognises that sport has the potential to bring out the best in Scotland's people. Let us agree to support those laudable aims and objectives with the appropriate funding.
Finally, I ask Mr Wilson, our new Deputy Minister for Sport and Culture, to see whether he can encourage our new Minister for Finance and Local Government to give us some more cash for the benefit of our indigenous sports, such as shinty, and music.
I am pleased to take part in today's debate, and I, too, welcome the new ministerial team, although I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the minister can tell us what creative genius decided that culture and sport should be included in the newly created environment department. As several members have pointed out, education is fundamental to the arts and sport, and I remain puzzled at what gains may be made by bringing sport, arts and the environment together in one ministerial portfolio. Perhaps more playing fields will be saved, or perhaps we will have more opera outdoors. I am intrigued to know the minister's answer.
There is a clear misunderstanding over the difference between culture and the arts. I accept that the Executive has at least avoided making the error of assuming that only high arts represent our culture. Culture is more than the sum total of our artistic canon, and I join John Farquhar Munro in saying that sport is part of Scottish culture—indeed, it is part of culture throughout the UK.
Our culture is the product of our nation's political and economic history. It is spontaneous and is made from independent contributions by talented individuals and organisations. It is not conjured up by official statement or produced by subsidy; it is the games in the school playground and our liking for golf on our windswept links. For me, it is sometimes a Scotch pie, and I declare my interest as the president of the parliamentary pie club—although people would never have guessed.
We now know who ate all the pies.
I can testify to that.
We believe that the role of every Government should be to preserve and promote our historical record. We do not believe in an entirely laissez-faire approach, as Ian Jenkins suggested. Our buildings and traditions need to be fostered in an open society in which new contributions can be made without requiring a politician's endorsement. A cultural strategy might be required by bureaucrats, but only so that they will know how to prioritise the spending of our hard-earned taxes. That should be done at arm's length, and I welcome the fact that the Government accepts that. That is important, to avoid creating an official culture.
As always, administrators and artists are looking for a subsidy to help them to achieve their aspirations. Nevertheless, many of our most cherished cultural icons—be they books, buildings or art works—have been fashioned in adversity. Money is seldom the catalyst; it is love and all our other human emotions, together with that creative spark which is the essence of artistic genius. Throwing subsidies at a so-called film studio in Glasgow, when film producers are willing to pay for one themselves in Perthshire, will not make our fledgling film industry sustainable. The present flourishing condition of the Scottish novel owes nothing to political interference. Indeed, political support of any cultural programme is likely to create a counter-culture. To set about a strategy to plan for culture is therefore the wrong way to go about it. As Leon Trotsky said, culture is permanent revolution.
Said without a blush.
There is more.
What does the strategy do? By its very nature, it was always going to disappoint. As Aneurin Bevan said:
"The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism."
For many, this cultural strategy has committed sacrilege. Let us take literature, for example. According to the newspapers, Ian Rankin was astonished at the cultural strategy. He said:
"There does not appear to be an acknowledgement of Scottish writing in there. Iain Banks, J K Rowling and Irving Welsh sell all over the world. There are people all over the world who are inspired not by Scottish Opera but by books."
Jamie Byng, the publisher of Canongate Books, said:
"It is pretty pathetic that, after months and months and God knows how much money they were given to come up with a blueprint, this is it. Not to recognise literature as crucial to the strategy is typically myopic."
As ever, I am somewhat baffled by Mr Monteith's logic. He has just argued—and I do not agree with him—that there should not be a film studio because the market will bear it, yet he is suggesting that there should be subsidies for good novelists, such as Ian Rankin, who are world bestsellers. Is there any logic in that argument, or is it just another Tory rant?
I am not given to rants, as Michael Russell knows. If he bears with me, he will see the logic of my argument.
You need to wind up now, Mr Monteith.
After accepting that intervention, I beg just a little leave, Presiding Officer.
It is clear that there were always going to be some people who would be disappointed by the national cultural strategy. That in itself shows that the national strategy has been unsuccessful, and the Conservatives believe that it has failed. There is clearly agreement among theatres on how we could move forward to establish a national theatre. The Federation of Scottish Theatres produced a plan that would take us forward, but the national cultural strategy holds us back.
Do we really need a cultural strategy? I believe that, in its current form, the answer must be no. We need a strategy for the arts and the role of the arts, a strategy for science and education, and a strategy to preserve our heritage. However, the national cultural strategy is incomplete and underfunded. It is just an artistic broth that does nothing more than to say that the Government is well-meaning but Philistine or, even worse, interested only in gesture politics.
I shall begin by expanding on a point that Michael Russell and others have made. Of the 64 pledges that were made in the national cultural strategy document, 39 are non-specific. The remaining 25 are meaningless, including the pledge to
"Ensure that the potential contribution of culture is recognised in community learning".
However, my favourite extract comes from page 29, which states:
"Libraries hold a wealth of resources in traditional print format".
I do not know whether content of such substance justifies the cost of the document or is worthy of the name strategy.
Instead of all that nebulous froth, we could have had a few succinct statements that would achieve something—I would like to give the minister one or two examples. The document could have said, "Teach Scottish history in schools." [Members: "Hear, hear."] It could have said, "Provide allowances and tax breaks to outstanding artists and musicians. Offer bursaries to musicians who study traditional music. Lobby for 5 per cent of music on radio to be indigenous as part of the conditions of licence."
Key priority 2.1 sets out how Scotland's languages are to be protected. That is to be achieved by examining
"the feasibility of a centre for the languages of Scotland covering Gaelic and . . . Scots which could incorporate the Scottish National Dictionary".
Well, I am sure that that is reassuring for the Scottish National Dictionary Association, whose finances remain precarious. Its future is linked to a centre that does not and might never exist and, if it is established, there is no certainty that it would include the SNDA. Scots language activists take no encouragement from the document and they feel let down, because it reflects little of the support that was indicated throughout the past year by the minister who formerly held the culture portfolio, Rhona Brankin. She assured us many times that the Scots language is important to our cultural heritage. Perhaps her definition of important is different from mine.
As for Gaelic, the document seeks only to identify a place for the language. The Executive claims to support Gaelic-medium education, but refuses to make it a right. It claims to support secure status, but has yet to introduce legislation to achieve that.
Any cultural policy that aims to be effective must have a clear set of objectives to ensure that it engages with education. As everyone knows, access to the arts in school, as an integral part of the curriculum, allows creative potential to develop. I do not think that the minister would disagree with that and the document says quite a bit about educational links.
However, any worthy aims are severely undermined by other Executive policies. Because of local authority funding cuts, teachers of music, art, drama and physical education are among the first to have their contracts terminated. Contrast that with Denmark, where there are specially trained workers whose full-time job is to engage with young people from an early age to effect a full understanding of the culture and heritage of their country. I suggest that that is a more relevant model for Scotland than school champions.
I want to say a brief word about the National Galleries of Scotland. The annual purchase grant, supplied directly by the Executive and used for new acquisitions, has yet to be restored to its 1993-94 level. That severely restricts the National Galleries' buying power on the international arts market. With an annual budget allocation this year of £1.2 million, it will be difficult to take up the offer of one of the Michelangelo drawings that have come on to the market, because both are valued at £8 million. There are no Michelangelo drawings in public collections north of Oxford, but there are 81 in the British Museum. Unless there is another desperate scramble to raise public and private money, Scotland will be deprived of the opportunity to own its one and only Michelangelo.
The minister will have noted that there has been all-party support for industrial museums. I encourage the minister in his summing-up to make a real commitment to that sector.
In conclusion, the document is not a starting point for a truly new way of doing things, which would be shorn of bureaucracy and strong on encouraging creativity in every part of Scotland. Unfortunately, the strategy will not deliver a vibrant and accessible vision of the place of art in the lives of the people of Scotland.
I start by making a correction for the record. I said that the increase in funding to the Scottish Arts Council was £13.2 million; in fact, the increase is £15.2 million. It is significant that in almost every speech, such record funding of the arts was not acknowledged. All we got from the nationalists was the girning and whining in which they always indulge. Mike Russell gave the usual chauvinistic and paranoid contribution—that characterises almost everything that he ever says or does.
One of the issues that Mike Russell raised was industrial museums, which were mentioned by a number of members. I repeat what I said at the start. There are 350 non-national museums in this country. The Executive cannot be expected to fund them all. We decided, therefore, to examine them to see which are of national significance and we have committed £0.25 million to that audit. We realise also—
May I interrupt you, minister? Would members please keep the background noise down? The minister is trying to close the debate.
The nationalists do not like the good news. They want to run Scotland down all the time. That is their policy—to run Scotland down.
We realise that we cannot wait for the audit. It is therefore necessary for us to do something and to put additional money in. There is £3 million available for restructuring, for which there was a distinct lack of welcome from the nationalists. However, before we commit any of that money, it will be necessary for us to discuss that with the local authorities—which have a duty in this regard—and with the boards and sponsors of the organisations. Not to do so would be foolhardy. I expect to be able to make an announcement on the matter very soon.
I see that Mike Russell is going to welcome the £3 million contribution that I have made. I thank him.
I know that the minister makes a stock-in-trade of unpleasantness, but I will not do so. I have welcomed the money on several occasions, but we want to see the colour of that money—people have lost their jobs. Is the minister going to do something to save jobs? Is he going to restore the money that has been cut, or is he just going to keep talking about it? Talking is not enough; people are losing jobs and Scotland is losing its museums.
Having increased the funding for museums during my period in office—
The money has not been spent.
Just a minute. Having increased the funding, that charge cannot be made against me. Whatever I do, I can be certain that Mike Russell will complain. When we make a contribution, he will sit there girning away.
I am reminded of what the nationalists did when we made the announcement about Govan—they sat silent. I remember when we announced that there would be no strike at Caledonian MacBrayne, the whole chamber welcomed the announcement and cheered—apart from the nationalists. They just sat there and complained. That is because good news is bad news for them. The only news that the nats are interested in is bad news. All they are interested in is running this country down.
I have given my commitment to the industrial museums. We are consulting on the matter with the relevant bodies and I will make what I think will be an announcement that will be welcomed by everybody—apart from the Scottish National Party.
A number of matters were brought up again. Brian Adam gave us the old red herring about more lottery funding going to England. He asked whether I would redress the balance. I certainly will not—if I do, our share will be cut. Scotland gets a greater share of the lottery funding per head of population than England. I had better not raise that matter with anybody else.
Linda Fabiani was right to talk about the importance of traditional arts and I want to echo much of what she said. She might also have acknowledged that we committed £250,000 to the piping centre, that £700,000 of the Scottish Arts Council budget is for the traditional sector and that we have again agreed to an additional £1.5 million for excellence in the traditional sector. None of that was mentioned or welcomed—all we heard was the girning that we always hear from the SNP. However, we should recognise what the Executive has done in the important areas that we are discussing.
David Mundell went on at length about the fact that he did not want state interference. That is a misconception of what the strategy is about. It is not about deciding the content of culture—that is dependent on the many sources that generate it. It is about establishing a structure that allows cultural excellence to develop. It is about excellence and education and widening access.
It is a bit rich for David Mundell to say that he does not want the state to interfere in culture, but that he wants it to provide policing for events and the clearing up of litter after those events. I have always believed that people say that they do not want state intervention until they need it, at which point they come banging on the door to ask for it.
I was also disappointed when David Mundell went on about the missing bits of the strategy. Of course, the national cultural strategy is not supposed to be universal. People complain that there is too much in the document, but then everybody stands up to say, "You forgot my bit." We cannot have it both ways. What we have done is highlight areas of excellence.
I was grateful to Ian Jenkins for mentioning the value of cultural co-ordinators. They do not exist to produce cultural ghettos, as Mike Russell misunderstood—which he always does because he never reads anything before giving us the usual soundbites. The cultural co-ordinators exist to ensure that culture is used to enhance education and that everybody realises their full potential and achieves a sense of self-worth.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to present the document to the chamber today. The motion invites the Parliament to endorse the strategy and the objectives that are identified in it. The strategy is an important first step that provides the essential framework to allow all agencies to work together to widen opportunity, promote education and celebrate excellence. I commend it to the Parliament.