Theatre in Scotland
The next item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3715, in the name of Robin Harper, on theatre in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to contribute to the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament regrets the lack of sufficient funding for Scottish theatre; notes the cutbacks at Brunton Theatre; notes the contribution made over the years by groups such as the TAG Theatre Company, 7:84, Borderline, Theatre in Education and TWE Edinburgh; further notes the looming funding crisis for repertory theatre, especially the Royal Lyceum in Edinburgh; notes that unless funding equivalent to the funding available to theatre in England and Wales is made available, there will be a drift of talent southwards that will result in the ability of professional theatre to survive in Scotland being undermined in the near future.
I must first declare my interests as a member of Equity, a patron of Forth Children's Theatre and Sounds of Progress and a member of the board of the Traverse Theatre. I also hope to join the board of the Communicado Theatre Company in the near future.
The support of public institutions for the arts, which until recently was characterised by relative apathy, is now characterised by relative complacency. The gap between those two attitudes has not been filled by anything that could justify the optimistic view that the Executive and local government in Scotland appear to take. The Deputy Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport no doubt has a prepared response that reflects such complacency. If nothing else, I hope to disabuse her of the idea that that position is tenable or justified.
Since I lodged my motion, Scottish theatre funding has hardly been out of the headlines. The theatre community in Scotland has no argument with the Scottish Arts Council—nor do I. Indeed, I pay tribute to the outspoken energy of James Boyle, who is the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council.
I want to clarify a few points. Funding for mainstream theatre has still not increased. In fact, core funding has more or less been at a standstill for the past two years. As this is a members' business debate, I make no apology for drawing the Executive's attention to problems that are faced by two theatres in the area that I represent—the Royal Lyceum Theatre Company and the Traverse Theatre.
The SAC has told the Executive that per-head funding for theatre in Scotland is roughly equivalent to that in England and Wales. That might or might not be so. I am sure that the minister has the relevant figure to hand. Equity has three yardsticks for testing whether the new Arts Council of England money is being put to proper use: larger casts, longer rehearsals and more new productions. I have no news from any Scottish theatre that it will be able to afford any of those.
Equity hopes that the boost will produce those advances, but the position in Scotland is causing great concern. This year, average funding for a grade 1 theatre will rise to £1,358,000 in England and to £1,346,000 in Wales. We can see how big the difference is between the two funding positions when we consider that each of Scotland's two grade 1 theatres currently receives approximately £0.5 million per annum less than that.
Let me move on to deal with local authority funding. The Traverse Theatre, which is Scotland's leading new writers' theatre, received a paltry £43,000 from the City of Edinburgh Council for 2002-03. That places it right at the bottom of the funding list. By comparison, the Tron Theatre Company and the Citizens Theatre in Glasgow received £103,000 and £475,000 respectively, whereas the Eden Court Theatre in Inverness received £0.5 million or more from local authority funds. It is clear that both the Royal Lyceum Theatre Company and the Traverse Theatre are facing genuine financial hardship.
Theatres throughout Scotland have been calling for funds to help deal with the creeping crisis that has developed as a result of recent years of standstill funding and effective cutbacks. In some cases, the problems date back to the unfortunate results of local authority reorganisation. Only last year, there was a united call for extra funding to help resolve entrenched on-going problems and to fund a national theatre organisation. We are pleased that the Executive has at last recognised the crisis and has diverted money that was originally destined to set up a national theatre organisation to support existing theatres, such as Dundee Rep and the Byre Theatre in St Andrews.
This year, following a £25 million investment in England and Wales, Equity and the Theatrical Management Association have agreed a 17 per cent increase in the previously appallingly low wages of Equity members. The agreement covers the whole of the UK, so Scottish theatres will also be required to foot the extra bill. The Scottish theatres have no alternative and, anyway, the deal has met with unanimous approval. The money has been found temporarily by raiding the funds that were set aside for a national theatre and by the Scottish Arts Council's juggling some of its core and lottery funding. However, it is important to recognise that that is not a long-term solution but an emergency measure to shore things up for the immediate future.
The reason for having a national theatre organisation in the first place was to stop the drift southwards of writers, producers and actors and to deliver top-quality work throughout Scotland that would link into schools and communities. The national theatre organisation was also to mount ambitious main-stage productions. The health of all of Scottish theatre depends very much on supporting the top of the tree to the fullest extent.
The theatre community takes extremely seriously its role in education outreach, particularly in poor and geographically remote communities. It is unfortunate that that vital work is under most threat when money is tight. There are very little box office returns from outreach and educational work. As a consequence, such work relies heavily on cross-subsidies.
Let me give the Executive a couple of reasonable comparisons. If we include national museums, libraries and Historic Scotland, we give 0.7 per cent of our budget to culture. Finland, which has a similar population, gives 0.9 per cent of the state budget, whereas Denmark gives 1 per cent of its national budget. The raw figures work out at £161 million for Scotland, £175 million for Finland and £350 million for Denmark. In all three countries, local authorities also make a huge contribution, but it is absolutely clear that, however one juggles the figures, Scotland comes out poorly when one compares the state, local and absolute levels of support for the arts in general and for the theatre in particular. Sweden is another country that puts enormous value on supporting culture and the theatre.
We must recognise that Scotland has three poverty problems: straightforward financial poverty; environmental poverty, particularly in our worst urban areas; and a poverty of mind and spirit, which extends into all levels of national and local government. We must recognise that the third of those failings can, and must, be addressed within the term of the next Scottish Parliament. Let us have no more talk about cities of culture until we put more of our national money where our mouth is. There are cities in Europe that have bigger budgets than does the Scottish Arts Council. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
If we ask whether we can afford to treble the subsidy to the arts, I suggest that we are already asking the wrong question. We should be saying that there must be a way to find those vital funds. It is a trifling sum of money compared with what we spend on other budgets. [Interruption.]
May I say—gently—to the people applauding in the galleries that this is not a public meeting. We do not allow applause in the Parliament because it might lead to boos on other occasions.
I congratulate Robin Harper on achieving the debate. I declare an interest as a director of the board of the 2000 & 3 Estaites Ltd theatre company.
Robin Harper has expressed well, eloquently and accurately some of the problems facing Scottish theatre and Scottish culture. Most disturbing is the Scottish Executive's response to all those questions. Time and again, the Scottish Executive attempts to make a virtue out of having created a crisis. The problems within Scottish theatre, as within Scottish culture, arise from that long-term failure to support Scottish culture, by the Executive and its predecessor Westminster Governments.
The situation with Scottish theatre is particularly stark. I was struck by the Scottish Arts Council briefing, which I find somewhat disingenuous. We can juggle the figures, but any increases that are going into Scottish theatre, no matter how small, are going there only by sacrificing part of the whole.
I do not regard the national theatre as an idea that has still to be achieved. I regard it as something to which there is an overwhelming commitment agreed by every party in the chamber, and endorsed by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. The national theatre exists; it simply has to be funded. The Executive made proposals to fund the national theatre. Each year between 2003 and 2006, it would get £1 million. However, the Executive knew that the steering group for the national theatre in Scotland—tremendously well chaired by Donald Smith—had proposed a different set of figures. Those figures are for the minimal requirement.
However, the Executive made a financial commitment. It walked away from that commitment time after time. Any increases that are available to Scottish theatre next year—and they are minimal—are coming from money that should be used for the national theatre. It is not an either/or situation.
The Executive has also forced good people from the theatre community to make that choice by putting them on either side of the debate. It is a choice between existing with the jobs that they have, and doing less, and welcoming something that would top out the provision of theatre in Scotland, which would deepen and enrich and which would feed back new work and new activity. That is something that everyone in Scotland wants.
It is particularly tragic that after the long debate leading up to publication of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's report, we managed to get a consensus among the members of the Scottish theatre community for the first time ever. The national theatre should be funded as part of that complete and complex package. Having got that agreement, the Executive has sought to divide and rule ever since. It has told people that they cannot have money because it would not leave any money for the core work.
I notice that Robin Harper is agreeing with me and the minister is disagreeing. I know what the members of the theatre community and the arts community are saying. Robin Harper will confirm it. The Executive has a policy of divide and rule and it is damaging in the short, medium and long term for theatre in Scotland.
We need to make a commitment. After the mess that the Executive has made of cultural funding in the past four years, and of the ludicrous national cultural strategy, we need a fresh start. We need to make amends for the mistakes that have been made.
We can do that quite easily. We can have an urgent baseline review of the arts in Scotland after 1 May. We can consider our nation's cultural requirements. We can debate the figures that Robin Harper has brought to the chamber and we can set our cultural priorities. Then we can plan properly for the future.
A core part of those plans will be the national theatre with national companies being funded directly by the Government. We now need that national debate. After years of cutting, sparing and pinching pennies, after years of confusion from the Executive and its predecessors, the time is right for a fresh start in Scottish culture.
Robin Harper's motion is correct, and although it will not be voted on, it should be supported by the chamber. We should no longer listen to the excuses and evasions of the Executive because, frankly, it has failed Scotland in these matters and in so many more.
I am always delighted to be able to speak in a debate about Scottish theatre. We all agree that Scottish theatre makes a huge contribution to Scottish life, whether it is through excellent companies such as Dundee Rep, the Royal Lyceum Theatre Company or Glasgow's Citizens Theatre, or through smaller spaces such as the Traverse Theatre, which gives young aspiring playwrights an opportunity to showcase new work. I have had the privilege as an MSP to work alongside Tag Theatre Company in its work with children through its Parliament project. That was a great project. Many other MSPs also had that opportunity.
We have great playwrights in Scotland, be they established writers such as John Clifford, increasingly recognised playwrights such as David Greig, or new young playwrights such as Isabel Wright, whose most recent work I saw last night at the Traverse.
While I am happy to speak about Scottish theatre all day, I must disagree with Robin Harper's motion. Come on, Robin. Let us be fair about this. One would think from his motion that we were seeing a complete meltdown in Scottish theatre. We are not seeing that. Let us set out the facts on the table. Let us get the facts right. On a per capita basis, the increase in funding for drama in Scotland compares favourably with that in England. That is a fact.
That is not to say that there are no problems in the sector. Robin Harper mentioned some of them. The trend in the number of productions performed by each theatre has declined. That has been compounded by significant increases in the wages of actors and stage management—quite rightly, and I agree with that. However, there are significant increases in funding. The Scottish Arts Council has achieved a total increase of 42 per cent for the theatre sector for the next two years, although I recognise that that will take some time to impact on the sector.
We have to remain firmly committed to the concept of a national theatre. There is a consensus on that. However, I recognise that the Scottish Arts Council's decision to ensure that regional theatre is put on a sure footing before we fund a national theatre is sensible. I ask the minister to restate the commitment to a national theatre. It is a centrepiece of our national cultural strategy. A huge amount of work has been done by the Scottish theatre community on the plan for a Scottish national theatre. Let us get on with it. Let us do it.
I should also declare my interest as a board member of 2000 & 3 Estaites.
I congratulate Robin Harper on securing the debate. It is a necessary debate, because the arts in Scotland face a real predicament. We have not had a statement on which we could question the minister. We have not had a debate so far. Questions that have been asked have received evasive answers, so I welcome the debate.
The debate is necessary because over the past few years—since 2001-02—we have seen a real-terms cut in Scottish Arts Council funding, from £37.7 million to £35.5 million next year. That is in real terms, using 2001 prices that are published and available. Of course the result, as we saw at the recent Scottish Arts Council meeting, is to freeze national company income and cut Scottish Opera income, and then to raid yet again the money that was earmarked for a national theatre company. Fundamentally, that is a flawed approach. The reality is that the delivery of a national theatre company has been substantially undermined, to the point where I believe that it is difficult to foresee it being delivered by the Executive, even if it is re-elected at the forthcoming elections.
The credibility of the Executive with regard to a national theatre company is shot to pieces. The ministers' reputations are in tatters, for they alone of all the culture ministers we have had in the Executive have presided over a real-terms cut in their department's budget. That information comes from official figures.
The member is not very good at counting.
I happen to have the figures with me.
Having won the debate on the need for a national theatre and obtained the cross-party support that Mike Russell talked about, we are in danger of having to revisit that debate. Every time that funding for a national theatre is cut, we must revisit the idea behind a national theatre and justify expenditure again.
The case for a national theatre company is clear. It is built on commissioning work from existing theatre companies, investing more in them, helping them to achieve perfection and driving up the quality of their work. A national theatre company would use work such as Theatre Babel's "Medea" and the Royal Lyceum Theatre Company's recent success with "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" and take it internationally. People who have made themselves known are willing to provide money for a national theatre company, but not for regional theatres.
As the national theatre company's budget has been raided twice, we must revisit the argument. What can be done? In the short term, the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport could review his budget and find the money. That remains possible, even at this late stage. The minister must also argue for additional funding from the Executive's budgets. Recently, a saving of £3 million from the advertising budget was announced. Such savings could be reallocated to a national theatre and the Scottish Arts Council. I would close the Scotland Office and remove Helen Liddell from her job. I would rather have more thespians than politicians, but that is not for this Parliament to deliver.
We must ensure that we need not debate theatre funding next year. In the longer term, we must find solutions that leverage more money from the private sector into theatre and arts generally. We cannot rely on state funding, because it cannot always be delivered. That puts Scotland's culture at peril. We must change our ways. I look forward to hearing how the minister will change his ways.
I congratulate Robin Harper on securing the debate and on his speech, which was the best that I have heard him give.
The ministers who are responsible for the arts are not to blame—Scotland has traditionally undervalued the arts. We have a huge backlog of investment to clear. We need more investment. Ministers, who I am sure are committed to the arts, could persuade the Government machine, which is less committed, that investment in the arts is helpful.
Other members have made some of the points that I will make. Quality of life affects everything. If people are happier, they will work harder and make more money, which is what people seem to be interested in. If we had good national dramas and good national companies were scattered about Scotland, that would increase national self-confidence. At the local level, community drama and learning about drama in schools would increase self-confidence. Drama is good for self-confidence, which it is regrettable that many Scots lack.
A good arts facility attracts entrepreneurs: Japanese businessmen might set up in Edinburgh because they like golf, opera and theatre. Investment in the arts has a good cash value and educational value. Many people learn much more from acting in a play than they do in a classroom, and they can continue to learn as adults. Such investment would mean savings in police budgets and a reduction in crime, for example.
We must invest more. An issue in theatre is the pay increase in the English regional companies, which are roughly equivalent to our large city companies. The English companies have an advantage and will be able to pay wages that we cannot.
We must pursue the national theatre idea. I accept the line that the minister and the Scottish Arts Council advance: that if we are setting out to build the Parthenon and have designed some lovely pillars, we must have a foundation or the whole thing will fall down. There is also not much value in having a nice site like the Acropolis, building the foundations and not building the pillars. We have to have the foundations, but we also have to have the pillars—to do otherwise is to waste our time.
As others have said, the idea of the national theatre is to build on the existing companies and invest in them so that they can provide bigger, better-rehearsed productions and tour them around the country. In the years that I was involved in the Royal Lyceum Theatre Company, I could never understand why really good projects that the Lyceum and the other big theatre companies produced could not be toured around the country for the benefit of all.
We know what the national theatre is aiming at: somehow, we have to find the money for it. I urge ministers to fight their corner even harder than I am sure they have fought already to get the money and direct it towards the overall improvement of the quality of life in Scotland through the theatre.
We move on to three-minute speeches. I call Lloyd Quinan.
I need to declare an interest. I was a member of Equity for 20 years. I am the ex-associate director of the Scottish Theatre Company, which was one of the attempts to create a national company in this country. I was also associate director of the Traverse Theatre and the artistic director of United Artists Scotland. I am one of the people who had to leave the theatre because of underfunding. To some degree, this is groundhog day for me, as I have been having this debate since I left college in 1978.
I want to talk about theatre workers, which is an issue that should be of concern to members of the Labour party. It is theatre workers who subsidise theatre: not the Scottish Arts Council and not the Scottish Executive. It is the theatre workers, their families and children who subsidise theatre through the low levels of theatre workers' salaries and wages. They also suffer the insecurity of short-term contracts, which can prevent them from being able to get mortgages or credit of any kind. We are happy to go and watch them, but we will not pay them properly.
In Scotland, many actors were able to work in the theatre in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s because of the existence of a fairly lively television drama production scene, which we no longer have. Today, actors may be asked to go and work in an ensemble piece that is being produced by the BBC on the banks of the river Clyde at £500 per episode. If they are on housing benefit and do that one episode in one week of their life, they risk losing their benefit. There are actors right across this country who cannot afford to take work in the theatre because they have families.
I have not even mentioned the many hundreds of writers, designers and lighting designers who also live in that same world of insecurity—in fact, writers probably have it worst of all. We have a canon of writing in this country that is seldom treated with the same respect that the canon of writing in any other European country is given.
Iceland, which has a population of less than 400,000, has a national theatre that is open 51 weeks of the year. It is an ensemble company of 35 actors with a supporting directorial, music and production staff and a canon of work that has been developed practically since 1901 or 1902.
Why is it that we cannot have in Scotland what an island on the edge of the Arctic is capable of giving to the world? The National Theatre of Iceland tours the world on a regular basis. It is recognised and respected while Scotland continues to have the same debate that we were having in 1978 when I left college.
I accept what Donald Gorrie said. It is not the fault of these particular ministers, but if they do not do something it will be their fault. To paraphrase Irvine Welsh, to be a Scottish actor is shite.
I, too, am a director of the 3 Estaites. As others have done, I congratulate Robin Harper on bringing the debate to the chamber. I agree broadly with the drift of the contributions that we have had so far.
I do not want to become overly involved in the detail and the figures involved in funding and funding deficits or to indulge in attacks on ministers. Mike Watson has a strong and commendable personal track record in supporting the Scottish Youth Theatre. He has promoted its cause with vigour and zeal. I also know that the deputy minister's work in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is well regarded.
It is clear to everybody that the theatre in Scotland needs to be funded on a more secure and sustainable basis. Nobody would disagree with that.
I am convinced that, across Executive ministries, parties and the Parliament, we must make more effort to recognise the importance of the arts in general in the life of Scotland at local, regional, national and international level. Especially today in this debate, we recognise the potential of the theatre to enrich the lives of the individuals who fall under its spell. To me, the theatre is a special place where we have a multiplicity of talent; there, we can share experiences with others and wonderful, memorable things take place before our very eyes. The theatre brings together the talents of writers, directors, actors, designers and musicians. It can surprise and excite us and, at best, it promises enchantment, enrichment and enhancement of our lives.
As politicians, we can talk sincerely and with real justification about social inclusion—I have spoken before about the work of Dundee repertory theatre in that regard. We can argue for the theatre on the basis of its importance for tourism and economics; there are times when that argument is needed. However, we should always have in our minds the ways in which theatre can bring inspiration, vision and insight into our lives. As policy makers, we must have a vision of the ethos that we wish to create in Scotland, to foster creativity in the arts. We need the kind of vision that brought us the Edinburgh festival and saw the possibility of staging "Ane Satyre of the Thrie Estaites" and other wonderful acting performances in this very arena.
My theatre visits began with the entertainers in Rothesay, where I saw comedians such as Chic Murray. I later saw Shakespeare productions in Stratford, great Scottish theatrical events such as 7:84's production of "The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil", and Bill Bryden's "Willie Rough" and his portrayals of the first world war and of the shipyard workers of Greenock.
I have a list of individual cases that I would have liked to mention. Indeed, I have spent time on this subject because my life has been enriched by the theatre. We cannot measure such experiences in pounds, shillings and pence or treat the arts as tick-box, readily measurable commodities. As a nation, we must recognise and acknowledge the value of the kind of vision, inspiration and social commentary that the theatre can offer us.
I conclude by quoting from James Boyle's article in The Scotsman on Monday:
"Above all, encourage great ideas and great writing that will break through theatre walls and create excitement with performance in new spaces and in the open air. Archive all the performances and give them to schools. Bring great stars to Scotland. Go for broke: create glamour, romance, thrills…
Let's have the national theatre and let's have the full funding stream. The arts will repay the country in full measure."
I agree with that final comment.
I thank Robin Harper for securing this debate. I am not a member of any theatre board and I certainly do not have Lloyd Quinan's experience, but I am very fortunate to come from a family that talked about the theatre a lot and, from the age of two, I was taken to theatres such as the Panopticon, the Alhambra, the Pavilion and the Kings. I am greatly interested in the theatre: it has certainly brought great joy and I have taken my own children along to it.
The country needs alternative, satirical and thought-provoking theatre that is properly funded. For example, last Friday, I attended a performance of 7:84's excellent production of Dario Fo's "Can't Pay? Won't Pay!" More people should be able to get out and about and see such productions.
Robin Harper touched on the important issue of community theatre. On Rhona Brankin's point about funding, I should tell her that, at Christmas, I attended a performance of Team Pinewood's excellent pantomime in Drumchapel, which involved all the kids, parents, teachers and so on from five to 55 years old. David Bell must be thanked for his work on that production. However, the company is about to fold due to lack of funding.
As for other theatre companies, I must congratulate David Wallace for starting up PACE Theatre Company—indeed, I was involved in that myself through Renfrewshire Council. However, although the company has become one of the biggest wee theatre companies in the whole of Scotland, it is also desperately short of funds.
Lloyd Quinan mentioned theatre hands and their families and the fact that they have to work for very little money. I should remind Rhona Brankin that, not so long ago, the Citizens Theatre had to close down between September and November because it could not pay anyone in the company. There is a shortfall in funding for the theatre and the arts in Scotland.
It would be very sad if the Parliament let great theatre companies such as TAG, Borderline, 7:84 and other community theatres such as I have already mentioned go to the wall for lack not so much of funding as of support from the Scottish Parliament and the Executive.
I call on the Parliament and Executive to consider the figures already quoted and to please support the local arts. They bring a great joy to people and they help to give us our Scottish identity and culture.
Dr Elaine Murray will respond to the debate on behalf of the Executive. You have seven minutes, minister.
I congratulate Robin Harper on securing the debate and on giving us an opportunity to respond to members' concerns on a number of issues and not only the text of the motion.
In view of his rather snide comment about prepared speeches, I reassure Robin Harper that I prepare my own notes from various bits of advice that I get from officials, so he can blame me if he does not like my speech.
It is unfortunate that there seems to be a tendency to concentrate only on the negative at the moment. Contrary to the impression given by some sections of Scotland's media, Scotland's theatre is very strong. That is not to say that it is without its problems, but Scotland's theatre is successful. We should spend more time thinking about those successes and being proud of them and not just talk about the problems of funding.
Rhona Brankin was correct to draw attention to some of the fine playwrights we have at the moment. There were eight nominations of Scottish companies at the Barclay Awards and three of the successful four were theatre companies. As Brian Monteith mentioned, there have been sell-out runs of "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" at the Royal Lyceum Theatre. There is also the Traverse Theatre's 40th anniversary programme. The fact that companies south of the border are looking to recruit some of our top directors is a demonstration of how successful some of those people have been rather than a cause for complaint and dissent.
Much has been made of comparisons between theatre funding in Scotland and in England. Rhona Brankin is correct—the levels of funding per head of population are similar.
Will the minister give way?
No, I would like to continue.
There has been a 33 per cent increase in theatre funding from 2002 to 2004—16 per cent last year and 17 per cent this year. Twenty-three core funded organisations received almost £7 million from the Scottish Arts Council. The Arts Council of England is bringing up its support to £70 million a year. Given that England has 10 times the population of Scotland, similar amounts of money are being invested in theatre.
Will the minister give way?
No, I am not giving way. I have only seven minutes and I want to get on.
The Arts Council of England supports 209 core funded organisations, which is a similar number, per head of population, to the number supported by the Scottish Arts Council. If we consider the figures—as I have—we find a much wider divergence in the amount of funding. Some theatres in England receive very small amounts—perhaps £10,000 or £20,000—whereas—[Interruption]. Will Mr Quinan please not shout from a seated position: it is quite unnecessary.
Order, Mr Quinan.
Let us be honest: some theatres are also getting large sums of money. In Scotland, the smallest awards are around £50,000 or £60,000. We have a narrower range of funding.
Robin Harper rightly said that there has been a problem concerning local authority supported funding—particularly to building-based core funded organisations, which has fallen since 1994-95. There is now a shortfall of some £405,000. We discovered last year that additional funding provided through the Executive and the Scottish Arts Council to some of our core funded organisations resulted in a reduction in support from local authorities. The unfortunate result was that those CFOs did not get the benefit we hoped they would get from the reallocation.
I do not have time to go through the settlements for individual theatres, but they go up by as much as 30 per cent for Borderline Theatre Company. Admittedly the increase has been made through the reallocation of £1 million, but there have been significant increases for a number of CFOs.
Much has been made of the total funding of the Scottish Arts Council. Brian Monteith is wrong: I do not know where he got his figures. The figures I have show that in real terms the Scottish Arts Council is faring slightly better than the Scottish Executive, because the Scottish Executive budget will fall in real terms from £18.428 billion in 2000-01 to £18.286 billion in 2003-04, or by 0.77 per cent. Over the same period, the Scottish Arts Council budget will increase from £35 million to £37.2 million, or by 6.6 per cent.
For those who want Mike Watson and me to vire other parts of the tourism, culture and sport budget over to the Scottish Arts Council—
Will Elaine Murray give way?
I do not have time. I ask those people to explain what parts of our budget they would cut. Would they cut—
I will explain if she will give way.
Mr Quinan should sit down. I have told him that I will not take an intervention from him.
She should not ask rhetorical questions, then.
Do they want to take money from VisitScotland, from sports programmes in schools, from support for our historic environment or from support for Gaelic? They have to answer some of those questions before they make such allegations.
There has been significant debate about the national theatre. I want to take the opportunity to restate the Executive's position. The national theatre remains an Executive commitment. However, we consider that without a secure package of funding for the full project, it would be inadvisable to proceed with detailed implementation at this stage. We believe that the theatre infrastructure needs to be secured in advance—Donald Gorrie made some good points about that.
We recognise that the Equity and Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union settlement places additional burdens on theatres. As a trade unionist, I would not agree to the funding of the national theatre on the back of not paying union rates to theatre workers.
Will Elaine Murray give way?
No, I will not.
There have been many calls for a review of arts funding. We would be happy to consider that. We have not yet heard any formal proposals from the Scottish Arts Council but, as Mike Watson said in his recent interview with The Scotsman, it would have to be a root-and-branch review and it would have to include the role and structure of the Scottish Arts Council. I remind people who call for a McCrone of the arts that the McCrone settlement was based on modernisation to release funds.
All I want to say in summing up is that—as Mike Watson and I do personally—the Scottish Executive does and will continue to value and support, and wishes to fund more fully, the Scottish theatre.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—