National Cultural Strategy
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3571, in the name of Mike Watson, on the national cultural strategy, and two amendments to that motion.
I am pleased to speak to and move the motion. At the outset, I say that I will be urging members to vote against both amendments. The amendment in the name of Michael Russell is neither necessary nor appropriate at this time. A quinquennial review of the Scottish Arts Council is under way at the moment—as is a review of Scottish Screen—and the creative industries group, which I established, is considering how to take forward those aspects of the national cultural strategy. At this stage, it would be premature to move in the way that Mr Russell suggests. In respect of the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser, I reject it because it is silly.
The second anniversary of Scotland's first national cultural strategy provides an opportunity to celebrate our culture and all that has been achieved in turning the strategy into practice over the past year. It is well established that culture makes a vital contribution to our country. My view is that our culture defines our identity. That is why it is a key objective of this Executive to promote a strong cultural identity for the nation.
As is demonstrated in the strategy and reinforced by the annual report, Scotland has a more diverse cultural identity than it has ever had. That is one of our great strengths. The Scottish Arts Council's diversity strategy, which I was pleased to launch in July, highlights how our now multi-ethnic society has enriched us further. It has simply added to the indigenous diversity that has existed for some time, not least in terms of Gaelic language and culture.
Will the minister give way?
I would like to make some progress first. I will let Dr Ewing in later.
The fact that cultural activity also happens to promote well-being, social justice, health and the learning of new skills provides an added bonus. I make no apology for advancing ways to pursue those outcomes at every opportunity, because culture really does change lives, but only if we are genuinely inclusive.
I ask members to acknowledge culture's contribution to the economic progress of this country, in particular in respect of the continuing development of our creative industry sector. The challenge now is to encourage the sector to capitalise on those developments and to cultivate an environment in which its already significant impact on the economy will grow. In that respect, over the past year I have started to explore with some of those who are prominent in our creative industries, and with the group to which I referred at the start of my speech, how that can best be done. In fact, this year, that has been a preoccupation of mine in my discussions with industry representatives, because the creative sector transcends the boundaries of the existing agencies. That is why I am working with Iain Gray to ensure that Scottish Enterprise provides the appropriate level of support to those companies and organisations, some of which are small but nonetheless important.
We need to question whether the current institutional arrangements best serve the sector and its advancement, or whether some form of synergy of related functions in a new arrangement—perhaps even a new body—might give the sector the status it requires and deserves.
I do not hesitate to assert that Scotland's cultural pulse beats strongly, because it appears that every week we read of Scottish artists and producers receiving national and international awards for supreme achievements in a host of cultural fields. The annual report acknowledges and pays tribute to some of them. It would be unfair to single anyone out, but the Edinburgh-based independent publisher Canongate Books Ltd is enjoying a hugely successful year, which is fitting reward for its vision in publishing the Booker prize winner, Yann Martel's "Life of Pi".
I must never again forget to sing the praises of Scotland's fine achievements in architecture or the distinction of our architects.
Name them.
I will.
The annual report records the Royal Institute of British Architects award for Stirling's Tolbooth. Coincidentally, I was there last Friday to address a conference on arts and communities. The Tolbooth redevelopment also won the Crown Estate's conservation award for the best work of conservation that demonstrates successful restoration and adaptation of an architecturally significant building. That recognition is well deserved for Richard Murphy and Simpson and Brown Architects.
Congratulations are also due for Malcolm Fraser's Dance Base in the Grassmarket, which is another award-winning building that impresses everyone who visits it. I am pleased that it has also received an access award from the ADAPT—Access for Disabled People to Arts Premises Today—Trust in recognition of its excellent facilities for people of all physical abilities.
Just having a cultural strategy will inspire neither wider participation and access throughout Scotland nor excellence and creativity in our cultural community, but in driving forward the strategy, we will seek to promote the conditions that foster excellence and showcase that with pride wherever we can—at home and elsewhere.
Many members know that we have done that this year. Our Scotland in Sweden promotion presented a dynamic cultural image to our European partners. We had the best ever tartan day celebrations in the USA and, tomorrow, the First Minister will sign a co-operation agreement with the region of Tuscany—a development that the Italians initiated. That will open the door to mutual project work and the exchange of good practices in key matters such as the promotion of cultural tourism.
I am aware of suggestions that culture needs to be pushed further up the agenda. I do not take issue with that, but it might not be sufficiently apparent how much work is under way behind the scenes, across ministerial portfolios and departmental boundaries.
I have a simple question. Will the Executive support the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced yesterday?
For reasons that I will outline later, we will not support the bill. I will put my comments in a positive sense.
What is positive about that?
I will explain our reasons in good time.
Incredible.
I do not think that the situation is disgraceful, but we will discuss that on another day.
I referred to cross-cutting work, which is demonstrated by the contributions in the annual report, which was published this week, from my colleagues Margaret Curran and Cathy Jamieson, which record not only their support, but their active engagement. I hear Winnie Ewing's comments from the sidelines and I ask her to concentrate on the debate as a whole. She will have the opportunity to comment on Gaelic issues when she makes her speech.
The past year has seen progress in many areas to develop the national cultural strategy and make it a reality. The writers factory initiative was launched following a feasibility study and is a project by the Scottish Arts Council, Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Screen to develop commercial writing skills. With the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, we have developed guidance for local authorities that explores their wide-ranging role, which is of key importance in implementing the strategy. Exciting digital advances include CANMAP, which is the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland's online heritage database and archive, and the people's network, which will soon connect all our libraries.
I hope that I have made it clear that central to my vision for culture in Scotland is the involvement of more people as spectators and, more important, as participants. That is why the new Scottish budget invests an additional £3.85 million in 2004-05 and £6.95 million in 2005-06 in widening participation in culture and raising standards. The resources that we will provide go beyond funding for the Scottish Arts Council alone. Overall, in a three-year term, the budget will deliver an increase of almost £11 million for cultural activities under the national cultural strategy.
I have a question about participation. I am sure that the minister is as thrilled as I am, along with everyone in Scotland, about the success of the film "Sweet Sixteen". The fact is that the film was shot in Scotland, written by a Scotsman and used Scottish workers and actors, some of whom were very new to the scene. Does the minister agree, however, that the decision of the British Board of Film Classification was wrong? Should the board have denied anyone under 18 access to the film?
I am happy to pay tribute to Ken Loach, Paul Lavery and, of course, to Martin Compston, as well as to everyone else who was involved in making the film such a success. My view is that local authorities should make use of the powers that they have to ensure that people under the age of 18 are able to watch the film, as it is clearly of great relevance to young people.
To return to the point that I was making about funding for the arts, it is unrealistic to expect the Executive to do it all, lead it all or—indeed—pay for it all. If Scotland is to maximise the range and quantity of our cultural provision, the input of many partners will be required. Many private sector organisations already provide sponsorship or engage in other ways. The arts and business new partners scheme is one example of that.
The annual report mentions a living example of that involving Tom Mills, a machine shop foreman at Fairway Forklifts Ltd. Tom Mills created a sculpture as a memorial to his father and uncles, who were former shipbuilders on the Clyde. He was able to do that because the company had the vision to support an artist-in-residence, which is how Tom's opportunity came about. I hope other employers across Scotland look at that example and see what initiatives of a similar nature they can come up with.
I have mentioned that it is time to let more people in Scotland know about what is going on and how accessible it is. That is partly what the 2002 annual report is about. Members who have seen the report will have noticed that it looks a little different from last year's document. I am not saying that the 2001 report did not do its job very efficiently in reporting to the Parliament what we were doing in implementing the cultural strategy, but I hope that the more reader-friendly appearance of this year's report will play its part in helping to promote Scottish culture to Scotland.
I know my limitations in terms of artistic ability, not least in respect of design. If members do not care for the style of the document, I do not believe that they can accuse me of putting style above substance because the substance in the document is considerable.
The report presents and celebrates last year's major cultural achievements, which are the combined contributions of many, many people. I want to pay credit to them all. The report could be described as—indeed, I hope that it will become known as—a directory of actions and of culture in Scotland. I hope that it will reach the extensive readership that it deserves.
Because I believe that, in terms of accessibility, we have to start with young people, the pilot programme of cultural co-ordinators in schools, which went live from August this year in 31 local authority areas, is extremely important. This morning, I visited Lochend Community High School in Easterhouse in Glasgow to hear from the pilot's cultural co-ordinator, Mari Lowrey, what the plans are for the school and how the pilot links into the community, which is another aspect of the scheme. Owing to the early signs of success that the scheme is enjoying, I announced that the two-year pilot has been extended for a further two years, to 2006, with an extra £1.5 million.
In the years to come, the scheme will more than reward the investment that we put into it. I want it to develop skills in young people and to give them a taste for culture in its widest sense, as that will be an investment for the rest of their lives.
The debate is necessarily about the past year, but the year ahead holds many exciting developments in prospect. However, I take it from the Deputy Presiding Officer's facial expression that he does not wish me to list any of them.
I will say only that the last year has seen considerable success and that the coming year promises more. Nobody reading the annual report could be in any doubt that culture is important and that it is becoming even more so. That is why we will continue to work on its priorities in the year ahead. I commend the motion and repeat my request to members to vote against both of the amendments.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the second annual report on implementation of Scotland's National Cultural Strategy; notes the action taken over the past year and welcomes the significant achievements of many dedicated artists and professionals throughout Scotland, and fully recognises the importance of culture in defining Scotland's identity both at home and abroad, its contribution to the well-being of communities and individuals across the country and its role in helping to bridge the opportunity gap by extending participation in cultural activities.
Although the debate is not exclusively about Gaelic, the minister will understand my great disappointment at what he has just said about the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced yesterday. I hope that there are steps that John Farquhar Munro and I can take to change the minister's mind. What he said is contrary to the hopes of many people in Scotland. I hope that the minister will enter into discussion about it. There is still time for him to change his mind.
I will continue on a more positive note. When the Executive is thrown out next year, as it is bound to be, I shall miss this annual occasion. Indeed, Irene McGugan and I have come to look forward to the annual report on the national cultural strategy. We treat it a little like Christmas: for weeks in advance, we are constantly looking through our mail, trying to find out when the document will turn up and what it will look like.
This year, I have to say that the minister has surpassed himself, and I congratulate him on the report. It is entirely fresh and new. For example, it has on its bill two guest artists. It is not enough to have an introduction from the minister and one from his deputy; it also features Margaret Curran and Cathy Jamieson saying how wonderful the Executive is. It also has a helpful directory of addresses at the end, which is surprising in a Government document. There are lists of lots of things that happened during the past year. The main problem is that few of them have anything to do with the national cultural strategy.
However, I have to say that the report is entertaining. It is not a report, especially compared with last year's report, that includes lists of objectives and key priorities. If I remember correctly, there were 64 objectives and priorities in the original document. Another thing to note is that it keeps getting smaller—like the achievements. Last year's report was huge, but this year's contains none of the key priorities. At least, we thought that when we first looked at it, but Irene McGugan, the sleuth of the Scottish National Party's culture team, found them. They are hidden at the bottom of the pages in light print and are no longer called objectives.
Two years ago, the Executive set itself a policy with 64 objectives and announced them in great triumph. Last year it reported on how few it had done anything about, and this year it is hiding them away. Next year, the minister could write them in lemon juice, so that we have to hold the pages up against a candle to learn that something is happening.
I should not complain too much, because despite the great disappointment on Gaelic, I think that this minister is the best arts minister we have had. He is looking embarrassed, and rightly so—I do enjoy finishing people's careers off for them. He is the best arts minister that we have had, but he is saddled with an impossible, daft policy, which is the problem with the national cultural strategy. The report is not about the strategy. It is a gazetteer or compendium of many things that happened in Scotland that would have happened anyway.
Evidence of that can be found on every page, but I refer the chamber to page 24. The key policy is apparently to
"investigate the feasibility of identifying national centres of excellence in traditional arts".
The page includes information on prize winners at the Venice film festival, someone who writes detective fiction and an award to the Piping Centre, which has not been named as a centre of national excellence. In all those cases, trying to find out what the Executive, rather than everyone else, has done is impossible.
It is dishonest for the Government to do that. It should have admitted that its policy is a failure but, having gone on reporting on what is taking place, it keeps changing the rules and how it talks about it. For example, last year's document included key priority 2.3, which said:
"The Executive will publish its major events strategy ... in 2001".
This year's document says that it will be published by the end of 2002. Publication keeps getting further away. Presumably, the next announcement will be that it will be in Labour's manifesto.
However, there is a darker and more misleading side to the issue: it involves constantly moving goalposts and the Executive never saying what it is doing. There is a still darker side in the way some of it is undertaken. Page 37 of the report contains a very positive quotation from the journalist and broadcaster Ruth Wishart. It comes from an article she wrote on 22 August 2002 in The Herald. If we read the whole article, we discover that the Executive has taken the good quotation and ignored all the others. That is misrepresentation. Two sentences further on from the quotation used in the report, she says:
"It is a dismal fact that half the schools in this country charge for tuition with a musical instrument unless the pupil in question comes from a family which is seriously impoverished".
That quotation is not in the report, which is highly selective, misleading and dishonest.
There is a darker side still. Nothing in the report addresses the key question in the cultural sector: whether we can afford to go on doing what we are doing or whether it will suffer death by a thousand cuts, which is what the museums sector is experiencing. There have already been closures. The minister and I spoke at last week's museums conference and he knows the reality of the situation. The same is happening in other areas of the arts as well.
Our amendment addresses that key fact. I have shown extraordinary self-restraint in its wording. As ever, I am deeply influenced by Ian Jenkins, who keeps getting up in the chamber and saying that he would love to support my amendments but objects to my rhetoric. This afternoon, Ian can simply ignore what I have said and vote for the text of our amendment, which says that we need to reassess the financing and organisation of the arts in Scotland. After all, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee—of which Ian Jenkins is a member—has heard a wide variety of individuals make the same point in this very chamber. Indeed, when Ruth Wishart wrote her newspaper article, she had already heard James Boyle, the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council, making exactly that point.
In the constructive spirit for which I am well known, the SNP amendment does not take anything out of the motion, nor does it seek to alter a word of it: it merely adds the simple suggestion that, as many people in the arts in Scotland have advised, the Executive should look seriously at how the arts are financed and organised as a priority instead of spinning or hyping it, or simply pretending.
The Executive can spin and bluster as much as it wishes and publish misleading documents. I allow it to do so. I will not change a word of its motion. If it wants to congratulate itself as it always has done—although Mr Watson does that somewhat less than his predecessors, including Rhona Brankin—it can do so. I want to get things moving again, and our amendment suggests a way of doing so.
I move amendment S1M-3571.1, to insert at end:
"and therefore supports those who are calling for a new assessment of the actual financial and organisational needs of the arts in Scotland in order to achieve those objectives."
As members know, Brian Monteith usually leads for the Conservatives in such debates. However, he is detained elsewhere this afternoon.
I do not know how Brian Monteith would have felt, but I am rather disturbed to find that I agreed with much of Michael Russell's speech. Mr Russell mentioned his Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill. I want to deal with that at the start, as it concerns a very important part of Scottish culture. I have not yet read the detail of the bill, but he addresses an important point of principle. The Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at stage 1 because we feel that such an important measure should be taken forward. Indeed, I am disappointed to hear that the Executive has decided not to support the bill and at least allow the matter to be debated in Parliament. If the bill comes before us, we can consider how it might be improved, and lodge amendments.
Frankly, we agree with much of the motion. We also welcome
"the significant achievements of many dedicated artists and professionals throughout Scotland"
and
"recognise … the importance of culture in defining Scotland's identity both at home and abroad, its contribution to the well-being of communities and individuals across the country and its role in helping to bridge the opportunity gap".
However, we do not welcome the cultural strategy itself, because we fundamentally disagree with the Executive's approach. Indeed, we fundamentally disagree with the notion of a cultural strategy, as if we can plan culture as we would plan a new road or building. Scotland's culture belongs to its people, not to a Government minister or agency. People do not engage with culture because of a Government strategy.
I wonder whether Murdo Fraser has been listening at all to what I have said. The strategy is all about facilitation and accessibility; it is about allowing people to get involved and do what they want to do. It does not tell people what to do, but makes the resources available to allow people to do what they want to do. Surely that is what the strategy is about. It is certainly not about building a road.
The minister said that my amendment is silly. I am not the one in the chamber who is being silly. If the minister bears with me, he will hear me develop my argument.
People do not buy tickets for concerts or the theatre, play musical instruments or visit historic buildings because the state tells them that those are good things to do or because some strategy says that this is how culture should develop. Culture develops organically regardless of—and probably in spite of—any cultural strategy.
We welcome many individual measures in the report, but we reject in principle the notion that we can encapsulate all Scottish culture in a strategy document. It is a top-down strategy that is based on the assumption that the minister has perfect knowledge of Scottish culture and that he knows what is in, what is out, what is or is not popular and what should or should not be encouraged. The minister might be intelligent, but he is not all-knowing.
I give members an example. The biggest single cultural event in Scotland—in terms of annual ticket sales—is the Edinburgh military tattoo. It attracts tens of thousands of visitors to Edinburgh and Scotland every summer. Every ticket was sold this year before the first show commenced. The tattoo provides a huge boost to the economy, as the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport will know.
I scoured the cultural strategy document for a mention of the Edinburgh military tattoo. How often does it appear? Not once. Perhaps that is because the tattoo celebrates our military traditions and our links with the Commonwealth and is insufficiently politically correct to be part of the cultural strategy. Whatever the reason, it makes my point: a cultural strategy for Scotland that fails to mention an event as significant as the Edinburgh military tattoo must be questioned.
Even if we accept the minister's argument that we should have a cultural strategy, the report is fundamentally flawed. Where are the targets? Where is the evidence of increased participation? It is rich with words, but poorer on concrete examples of progress.
We have heard a lot from the minister about more cultural co-ordinators in schools. By all means let us have more culture in schools, but why do it in such a top-down manner? Why do we take the decision for them rather than give them the money directly and let them decide at a local level how to spend the money on promoting culture? Perhaps they would spend the money on more musical instruments. Perhaps they would spend it on piping lessons—we know that there is huge unmet demand for piping lessons in Edinburgh.
On page 39, the report says that guidance on tuition is being developed, but when, last month, Brian Monteith asked parliamentary questions about which local authorities charge for music tuition and how much they charge, the reply was that such information is not held centrally. The Executive does not even know what the current position is. How can the minister in all seriousness produce a strategy that mentions music tuition in schools when he does not have even the most basic information about the level of current provision?
This morning, I talked to a parent in Aberdeen whose son displays some prowess at the piano. He goes to piano lessons provided by the local school for half an hour a week. He shares that lesson with six other children and, if he is lucky, he gets two minutes on the piano. That is the standard of current provision. When I examine the glossy strategy document and those that proceeded it, I wonder how much it cost to produce. Surely that money would have been better spent it if had been put into schools to provide instruments and free music tuition.
Another example of failure is to be found on page 49, where Gaelic-medium education is mentioned. Another 10 teaching places are welcome, but can the minister tell us whether that will meet demand? I suspect that he does not know. If he is serious about promoting Gaelic-medium education, why does he not support our plan to give parents a genuine right to Gaelic-medium education schools where the demand is not being met by local authorities, as is the case in Edinburgh? Yet again, the strategy fails.
The cultural strategy is deeply flawed. It was always bound to be, no matter who the minister was. By its nature, culture flows from the people. It cannot be handed down from above and it cannot be encapsulated in a glossy document, no matter how expensively produced.
In the words of the motion, we welcome the achievements of artists throughout Scotland. We recognise the importance of culture, but we reject the minister's flawed approach.
I move amendment S1M-3571.2, to leave out from "the second" to "and welcomes".
I welcome the publication of the cultural strategy. The document provides a kaleidoscopic overview of what has been done, actions that are in progress and those that will be implemented in the future to develop the strands and themes that were outlined in the original cultural strategy.
A kaleidoscope is a collection of fragments, which, if taken together, form an attractive picture. One of those fragments is an arresting photograph of a young lady on page 25. She is dressed in the finest Borders cashmere from my constituency, showing that art and design need not be confined to drawing boards or art galleries, but can play a part at the leading edge of Scottish business and export markets. It reminds us of the part that business sponsorship can play in the arts. The Ballantyne Cashmere Company Ltd was involved in the "Forbidden City" exhibition at the National Museum of Scotland, where that photograph was taken.
The document shows us that important and valuable developments are taking place locally, nationally and internationally. I see the strategy at work in Peebles in my constituency, where work has started on the Eastgate Arts Centre project. The project was started by the local community and, with a wide range of partnership funding, an old church building at the end of the high street, which was in bad repair, is being restored and adapted by award-winning architect Richard Murphy, who was mentioned earlier, to create a multipurpose arts centre. The heritage strategy and the architectural strategy are coming together to provide a new centre with an auditorium that will draw in companies such as Scottish Ballet and Scottish Opera in their outreach activities. The centre will also attract other artists who would not have come to the town because there was no really good facility before. Arts companies have come before, but not into good facilities, and they will come more frequently now.
Local theatre groups will have new, exciting facilities and there will be great potential for new conference business in the town. The lives of the people in the area will be enhanced, the streetscape and environment will be reviewed and the facilities will be more accessible to the public and to people with disabilities than existing venues are. In every way, that project shows the aims of the cultural strategy coming into practice.
The local silver band has had lottery funding to buy new instruments. The rationale behind the grant was that the old instruments could be passed down to expand the development of a youth strategy, so that youngsters could have access to tuition and instruments that would not have been available before. That expands social inclusion and opportunities for people to develop their skills.
The document points to national successes by individuals in cultural competitions, some of which have already been mentioned, so I will not go over them again. Developments have taken place with the Scottish National Dictionary Association and, as the minister said, extra resources have been made available for innovation on the computerised archives and digital work. There is also work to invigorate interest in the Scots language. I got a wee brochure today from one of the schools—in Stirlingshire, I think it was—which was an absolutely lovely wee dictionary. I did not get a note with it so I do not know where it came from, but it was a superb idea and an example to us all.
I am very glad that Ian Jenkins has mentioned Scots. I am happy to endorse the work of St Ninian's Primary School in Stirling, which has asked us all to adopt a word. My word is clamjamfrie; I just wanted to put that on the record.
Ian Jenkins has not mentioned Gaelic, however, and in light of the fact that the minister replied to a question on Gaelic and that Murdo Fraser and I have referred to it, I would be interested to know Mr Jenkins's view on secure status for the Gaelic language and the bill that was published today.
As Mike Russell already knows, I have doubts about secure status for all sorts of reasons, because I do not think that there would be demand for it. I think that secure status would be problematic for Scots as well. I defer to my colleague John Farquhar Munro, who will say more about Gaelic later.
Will Mr Jenkins give way?
No. I am just answering a question.
I have a different question.
I have to get on, honestly.
Cultural co-ordinators in schools seem to be an advance. There is much to celebrate in the document, but there are underlying problems that we must not ignore, many of which are to do with funding. There are also issues to do with how we view and rank cultural activities in our list of priorities. The Parliament and Executive ministers must fight to ensure that those issues are moved up the political agenda, and that means fighting for more funds. I am pleased that the document contains messages and endorsements from Cathy Jamieson and Margaret Curran. As a group, we must emphasise cross-cutting activities in a way that helps the Cabinet to recognise the issues as worthy of more funding.
When we debate quality of life, as we did last week, members tend to talk about vandalism, dog fouling and graffiti, but we must not forget the quality-of-life issues that are embodied in the national cultural strategy document. The lives of individuals and whole communities can be enhanced by access to the kind of projects that are instanced in the document. Perhaps if we could clear away the dog dirt and stop looking down to dodge it, we could raise our horizons a bit further and help to lift the creativity and artistic ambition of communities across Scotland.
We must convince local authorities that arts and culture are not a marginal issue that can provide a soft target when financial constraints cause problems. We must convince head teachers and directors of education that drama, music and art should be at the heart of education and at the heart of the imaginative lives of individual pupils and of our school communities. I am pleased that the document contains an audit of youth music provision, and I ask ministers to consider urgently the promotion of free instrumental tuition in schools across Scotland.
I emphasise the importance of volunteers in the cultural sector. The document mentions volunteering at local level. I also want to mention the Saltire Society, which does great work for Scottish culture with minimal financial support. Such institutions need to be supported locally and nationally. There is much to celebrate, but more funds are needed and there should be a higher priority for arts and culture on our political agenda.
We have now reached the open debate. Speeches should be restricted to four minutes, plus time for interventions.
The saying goes that a week is a long time in politics. However, some of us in the chamber might have a different perspective. Politics can be a frustratingly slow process. When one is impatient for change, as many people in our cultural and creative industries are, fulfilling high expectations can be a frustratingly slow business.
There was not a total cultural wasteland before 1997. I do not wish to portray our Conservative colleagues as a bunch of philistines, as that would be a disservice to philistines. However, the Scottish Parliament was established on the back of the support of many people within creative Scotland and on the back of a huge demand for change. Perhaps there was no greater demand than from our popular music industry.
The Parliament is new and young and many MSPs are from a generation that was brought up on pop music. I sit within earshot of Frank McAveety's desk and know the influence of such music. There may be reservations about the seeming desire of everyone in the country to appear on "Popstars" or "Fame Academy", but Scotland's strong track record in the music industry and the accessibility of such music to people from all backgrounds is undeniable. The music industry provides one of the most important avenues for the expression of creativity, ability and talent and there was an expectation with the arrival of the Scottish Parliament that that creative talent would be recognised officially.
Inevitably, one of the most significant developments has been the work of my colleague Pauline McNeill in establishing the cross-party group on the Scottish contemporary music industry. For the first time, that has provided a forum for discussion and a mechanism by which the industry's concerns can be brought to the attention of MSPs, ministers and the Executive.
We have made progress since then, particularly through support from the Scottish Arts Council, our colleagues in local government and, more recently, from Scottish Enterprise. The recent music industry forum, which was convened by the minister and involved musicians and other industry representatives, was particularly well received. I urge the minister not to lose the momentum that has been generated because, despite the progress, a number of issues still face the industry and need our attention. For example, many courses in further education colleges offer opportunities to our young people. However, those courses can be of varying quality. They often attract people into education—which is good in itself—but some offer little prospect of advancement in the music industry. That issue should be addressed.
We need to work with broadcasters in Scotland to help to provide a showcase and platform for Scottish talent. I do not think that there should be prescription, but the BBC, for example, produces excellent programmes that could be models for others. They could be linked to events, although there are pitfalls in that respect. Again, maintaining quality is important. Programmes should show off rather than show up Scottish music and Scottish bands.
I have used the term "music industry". That industry is indeed important; it is not just a creative outlet. The support that already exists for small businesses and the creative industries from Scottish Enterprise needs to be tailored more specifically to the needs of musicians and others in the industry. Further work needs to be done to develop skills and markets. I pay tribute to Scottish Enterprise's efforts in the recent launch of MusicWorks as an international event that is based in Scotland. We should do more to help to fund export assistance so that Scottish artists can reach out to the wider world. There is a recent example in that respect—Soma records was based in New York for a time, with Scottish Enterprise's help.
Closer to home, further work needs to be done to develop venues and rehearsal spaces for bands. I welcome the excellent work that local authorities and Glasgow City Council in particular have done in that area. For many people who go to a live gig, the music may be good, but there are often sticky floors, bad heating and worse toilets.
Huge international and national developments are affecting copyright, piracy and intellectual and performance rights. We need to maintain a Scottish perspective and a Scottish influence on those developments.
A range of issues must therefore be considered, many of which will require the minister to involve and work with his colleagues in education and enterprise and with the local authorities. I congratulate the minister on the progress that has been made and urge him not to lose momentum. If he does not do so, we can help the Scottish music industry and do justice to those who helped to create the Scottish Parliament.
For many years, Scottish culture and the creative arts were neglected by those in power. Despite that, there were many examples of people coming together against all the odds to create cultural advancement and entertainment. Small travelling theatre companies, such as Borderline Theatre Company, 7:84 Theatre Company and Wildcat Theatre Company, combined top-quality writing and acting with social comment. Traditional musicians and artists created folk events and festivals all over the country, in Aberfeldy, Dingwall, Bute, Edinburgh and Girvan, to name but a few. There were also great multicultural events, such as the mela. Local authorities were also active: witness the success of Celtic Connections, which Glasgow City Council initially helped to fund.
Surely now that we have a devolved Parliament, those beginnings should be built upon and strengthened. Sadly, that has not been the case. The Executive has not taken advantage of the opportunity that devolution could have provided to counteract the years of neglect. Core funding for the arts has not risen significantly and is proportionately lower than in the rest of the UK. Grass-roots companies are struggling—sadly, some have already gone under—and our national institutions are woefully underfunded.
When the cultural strategy was first unveiled way back in November 2000, I spoke in the debate. When I look back at the Official Report of the speech that I made that day, I find it sad that I could read the same speech over again today, because nothing much has changed. At that time, I told the chamber how the then Deputy Minister for Culture and Sport, Rhona Brankin, had said:
"The development of the Cultural Strategy has been a stimulating and invigorating experience".
She had also said that
"excellence in the traditional arts"
was being promoted. I will repeat what I said then:
"We already have excellence in our traditional arts; it is the promotion and funding that is the problem … 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."—[Official Report, 2 November 2000; Vol 8, c 1367.]
I was interested in the minister's comment about the promotion of Scotland abroad. The thrust of the review is all about events abroad, such as the Scotland in Sweden event. That is marvellous and should not be knocked, but we are forgetting about the promotion of our culture here in our own country to our own people through schools and colleges and through entertainment and the arts.
I appreciate Linda Fabiani's interest in the traditional arts. Funding of traditional excellence is one of our priorities. Does not the member recognise that, for example, the Scottish Arts Council is providing funding in a three-year programme to promote the traditional arts? Does not she recognise the £700,000 from the excellence fund that went to Plockton High School? I am confused about why the member thinks that nothing has happened since the strategy was first published.
The minister can have all the little pilots she likes, but she must give core funding directly to the people on the ground who are capable of delivering excellence in traditional arts, instead of funding them to fill in applications for match funding from councils and for lottery funding. The people who can best provide that excellence are those who have been doing it for years despite the lack of a strategy.
The strategy document was welcomed by the SNP, as it reflected culture as part of the education portfolio. Sadly, however, the Executive does not seem to have moved on to do more than reflect on that.
The minister can talk all she likes about what the Executive is doing through the Arts Council and so on, but the fact is that local authority provision has dropped. Interviews with key players in local authorities have revealed that cultural services are held to be less important than other services. There is a general lack of finance to deliver the expectations. The increased use of ring fencing and matched funds to direct local authority expenditure has had a detrimental effect on the arts. The Executive's response is simply to issue another consultation; this time it is on guidelines to local authorities on the implementation of the national cultural strategy.
Two years ago, the cultural strategy said that the Executive would
"Work with education authorities to maximise opportunities for instrumental tuition in schools, free to those unable to pay".
No mention is now made of free tuition, which is another target that has disappeared. Instead, we have more and more consultations. It should be quite easy: just give free musical tuition to children in schools.
We have had enough of pilots. The minister can have as many pilots and task forces as she likes—I understand that we are to have another audit about musical tuition in schools—but we need to be more realistic, so that we can get things really working. The way to start on that is to support the SNP amendment to the motion.
I said to St Ninian's Primary School in Stirling that I would choose the word "girning". I chose that word because I thought that I would get ample opportunities to use it in the Parliament. Linda Fabiani, who has come the closest to girning for five minutes, is the girning champion this afternoon. I will send that to St Ninian's to prove that I have used a Scottish word.
I recently supported the debate on the Inverness Highland bid for the European city of culture. Although many people thought that the bid was an ambitious project for a new city, many others—including me—thought that it could only be a win-win situation. That has been the case, even though Inverness did not make the short leet. What the team achieved was to get people, groups and organisations together to undertake an audit of culture throughout the Highlands. From that audit of culture, a cultural pledge was stated.
One of the pledges from the Inverness Highland bid was to introduce free music tuition in schools, rather than the current system in the Highlands, which uses means testing. Many parents would rather not ask for music tuition than participate in a means test. However, I had some hope when I saw a quotation from the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. Mike Watson—I am sorry to see that he has left the chamber—said that it was disappointing that the Inverness Highland bid was not successful. He also said:
"Several initiatives deserve to be developed even though the Inverness bid did not make the shortlist."—[Official Report, Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 30 October 2002; c 2953.]
My hopes were raised until I saw the national cultural strategy. On page 39, it says:
"Work with education authorities to maximise opportunities for instrumental tuition in schools, free to those unable to pay."
That is hardly encouragement for those who feel that, throughout Scotland, children in all schools should receive free tuition.
On page 41 of the national cultural strategy document, I note that there has been an
"audit of youth music provision".
I welcome that. The audit has been commissioned by the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, the Scottish Arts Council and the National Foundation for Youth Music to
"consider opportunities across all styles of music and in both the formal and informal education sectors."
I understand that the report will be published next month. I hope that the Executive will be committed to addressing issues that have been identified by the audit, so that we do not have postcode music tuition fees throughout Scotland. I hope that the audit will also highlight a cultural pledge to school pupils, as the Inverness Highland city of culture bid did. If social inclusion and equality of access are to mean anything, surely it is not acceptable to means test pupils for music tuition in one area and to give such tuition free in other areas.
My second point concerns Castle Tioram. My colleague Rhoda Grant has raised the matter several times. It is important that all the quangos and organisations share the minister's vision for culture—and I include Historic Scotland. Castle Tioram is a part of our culture that most of us have never heard of, belonging to the mercantile days of the lord of the isles.
Does the member therefore support the calls of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee for a fundamental review of the functions and responsibilities of Historic Scotland?
Yes. Well done. I very much support that.
My third point relates to the role of business in the arts. It would be stifling to innovation and culture if we assumed that Governments and local authorities could or should organise all cultural events. The cultural strategy places emphasis on the relations between the arts and business. Recently, through the business exchange, I spent a day at Deutsche Bank, which is one of the largest collectors of art; its offices look wonderful and one is faced with beautiful paintings at every turn. That not only helps the artist, but benefits the employees and the wider community, with more people being exposed to, and becoming appreciative of, art. Deutsche Bank also sponsors the Scottish Chamber Orchestra.
I use the example of Deutsche Bank to highlight the significant role that many businesses in Scotland play in contributing to culture. We do not always recognise and acknowledge that role. I hope that, both now and in the future, the minister will acknowledge and encourage partnerships between the arts and culture and businesses throughout Scotland.
Like everyone else, I welcome the opportunity to participate in a debate about our national cultural strategy. It must be recognised from the outset that culture has major economic benefits as well as being vital in its own right. That is one of the many reasons why it was so disappointing, as my Highland colleague Mary Scanlon said, that Inverness failed in its bid to be the United Kingdom's nominee for the European capital of culture in 2008.
A combination of Highland Council officials, young people and volunteers put in a great deal of effort to make the bid as robust and dynamic as possible. I commend all who worked so hard on the bid. I do not think that all that effort was in vain. We should not lose sight of that. The ideas and the momentum behind the bid showed us what could be achieved when we all put in the effort and what we can achieve in the future if we put our minds to it. For example, as Mary Scanlon said, Highland Council pledged that every pupil would have access to music and drama tuition as well as other activities. We must vigorously pursue that initiative.
The bid team also commissioned a report on the estimated economic benefits of a successful bid. It was estimated that 8,000 jobs could be created by 2008. That is a large number of jobs for such a rural and sparsely populated area, but it gives us an idea of how important a long-term national cultural strategy is for the economic well-being of Scotland.
Today is an historic day for Parliament and for me in particular because the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill was launched today. I am sure that members would be surprised and disappointed if I did not comment on that. The bill is a step in the right direction and is worthy of cross-party support in the chamber. Many have suggested that the bill does not go far enough, but at least it gives an opportunity, through the Parliament, for the Gaelic community to secure its language and culture for generations to come.
Members will note that the Executive has yet to introduce its own bill to achieve secure status for the Gaelic language. However, I am encouraged by the Executive's acceptance of the recommendations presented by the ministerial advisory group on Gaelic. The new body, bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba, is being established and will report to the Executive. The body will be chaired by no less an eminent Gael than Duncan Ferguson, the rector of Plockton High School, which is in my constituency.
The establishment of the new body gives us hope and encouragement, particularly as the Executive has allocated £3.5 million over three years for the promotion of its initiatives. To be fair, I think that the minister has demonstrated his support for the Gaelic language and culture. I hope that, with cross-party support, he can be further encouraged and supported in his aims so that we can confirm to our Gaelic community that it is not being ignored or abandoned by the Executive. I am pleased to support Mike Watson's motion on the national cultural strategy.
It is two years since Donald Dewar and I launched the national cultural strategy. However, I see that nothing has changed with Mr Mike Russell, who continues to be as negative as ever on the subject. I thought that his speech earlier on the launch of the national cultural strategy was the most negative speech I have ever heard. He surpassed himself in that speech.
It is widely recognised in Scotland that culture is vital for everybody and makes a huge contribution to many areas of Scottish life, such as education, the economy and social inclusion. However, what is important is that culture and the arts, through such means as contemporary music, literature and dance, bring joy and self-confidence to all of us in Scotland.
I would like to concentrate on three areas of cultural policy. First I will speak about the importance of architecture and design in school buildings. I congratulate the Executive on the conference that it held on that subject earlier this week. In particular, I would like to talk about the presentation that Hilary Cottam from the Design Council made on the English project school works. I found her presentation inspiring. She described how the process of redesigning both the buildings and the school environment of a secondary school engaged the whole school community—pupils, staff, parents and the wider community. The process succeeded in turning round a failing school.
In her summing up, will the Deputy Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport indicate whether she is prepared to discuss with her colleagues in the education department the possibility of supporting a similar project in Scotland? Is she as excited about such a project as I am?
Secondly, I would like to talk about the revolution that is taking place in Scotland's libraries. I declare an interest, as the chair of the Scottish Library and Information Council. The revolution to which I refer is the people's network. It is the biggest investment in libraries since Andrew Carnegie's. By next spring, every library in Scotland will be connected. That is a huge step forward. By linking every library, we will contribute to digital inclusion. The programme will create wider access to information and make a major contribution to lifelong learning in Scotland. A massive investment is being made. Will the minister assure us that, along with other ministers—this is a cross-cutting development—she will consider the sustainability of funding for the people's network? I believe firmly that it has the capacity to revolutionise lifelong learning in Scotland. It is vital that we ensure its future.
Thirdly, I would like briefly to touch on the museum sector in Scotland. Again I declare an interest, as a trustee of the Scottish Mining Museum. It is clear that, following the national museums audit and the consultation that is currently under way on the museum sector, the ministers will have some tough decisions to make. We all believe that museums have a vital role to play. We must think creatively about the possibility of developing new partnerships between the national sector and the museums with the most important collections in Scotland. Does the minister agree that some of the interesting models that have been developed south of the border are worth considering for Scotland?
Let us not talk Scotland down. Scotland's culture is alive and well. Like health, education and crime prevention, it will always need more funding. I welcome the cultural strategy. Members would expect me to say that, but I genuinely believe that we are making progress. The report demonstrates that. I urge members to reject the rather predictable Opposition amendments.
One reason for this Parliament's existence—apart from the political manoeuvring that brought it about—was the incredible growth in confidence that took place among the people of Scotland in the period that coincided with the political movement towards the Parliament's establishment. Much of that confidence was born out of cultural movement in the country—in the theatre, literature, music and poetry. That movement made a huge contribution to the nation.
Culture is an important part of our way of life, of how we address the world and of how the world sees us. One should not minimise the importance of the issue.
I was interested to hear the minister speak about Lochend Secondary School in Glasgow, the school into which my old school was amalgamated in 1989. He talked about the cultural work that is being done in the school. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, we had the Easterhouse summer festival, which was cultural in the broadest sense. That was succeeded by the Easterhouse Festival Society, which operated all year round. Cultural initiatives have been alive and well for a very long time as we all know.
I am sorry about Gaelic; I have very little myself and the prospects do not look too good for it today, but that is another issue.
On a frivolous note, there has been much chat about the wonderful appearance of the Executive document. I have to say that it literally smells and I will watch carefully after I have sat down to see how many people catch the odour of the print. It is visually very repetitive with the red bit running through it. If we are targeting a smaller, more easily read and more economic document next year, we can probably cut out one red page in every two or three.
I would like to girn a bit about local government, because girning is—
An SNP habit?
No, it is just something that we do from time to time to clarify the state of affairs for those who cannot see the wood for the trees. The Scottish Executive's survey of local authority provision for arts and culture indicated that between 1997 and 1999 there was a reduction of £8.5 million in expenditure on arts and culture. Interviews revealed that cultural services in local government are held to be less important than other services. That reminds me of the anecdote about the recently appointed convener of culture whose conversation was overheard in the members' lounge. They were asked, "I hear you've just been appointed convener of culture—what do you know about culture?" They replied, "Expletive deleted all and that's the way I intend to keep it." That might give an explanation as to why culture does not feature terribly highly when other statutory obligations have to be met.
There is also a view that not enough money was given to local authorities to deliver on people's reasonable expectations of keeping cultural movements and initiatives going. The difficulties that were caused by ring fencing have been mentioned.
I want to talk briefly about libraries. Rhona Brankin spoke about the revolution in libraries. It is generally recognised that libraries are about the most widely used cultural asset in the entire nation. According to Audit Scotland, in 2000-2001, for the fourth year in a row, councils failed to meet the national target for additions to adult, children and teenager library lending stock. Throughout Scotland adult stock additions were 27 per cent lower than the target and children and teenager additions were 29 per cent lower than the target.
I will finish with a little anecdote. My oldest granddaughter has just gone to Johnstone High School. Her father, who is an English teacher, was delighted at the enthusiasm that she showed for the school library. A school library where she can go and borrow books, come home with them and read, learn from and enjoy them was a novelty to her. The sad thing about that is that all the years of our lives, until about five years ago, her father and I could go to the local library in Kilbarchan, which was part of the normal fabric of village life. In the enthusiasm of the Labour district council to carry out Gordon Brown's Tory policies, the library disappeared and was replaced by an occasional visit from a bus. I have no difficulty whatever in supporting the SNP's motion, which suggests that more financial input is necessary.
It is guid to hae a bit o a blether aboot culture on a day like the day, is it not? It has been a wee bit o a rammy and some o ye hae been mince. Mike Russell and John Farquhar Munro are gey seeck because the heidie said nae to their bill. Rhona Brankin is a bit scunnert and Linda Fabiani had a guid moan. I had better get on with this afore the big man tells us to wheesht.
The wee man.
I could not possibly comment. Colin Campbell was obviously not attributing the comments that he mentioned to me, given that last Sunday I was sitting in the Telewest arena in Newcastle listening to Cliff Richard, so obviously my cultural experience is great. I notice in the press gallery Mr Andrew Slorance, who made a guest appearance at the Scotland in Sweden event with the Mull Historical Society—an excellent Scottish band that encompasses the kind of Scotland that we want to promote to the wider world.
We need to give credit where credit is due—to Scotland's culture in all its forms. We have a history that encompasses stirring battles and dramatic exploits. Equally, we have a social history that provides us with a rich social and cultural living heritage, which is encompassed in New Lanark in my constituency. Our social history is very much part of our culture.
We need to give proper value to our culture, not only as an image that others find attractive, but as the embodiment of who we are as people. Our culture must reflect our history and it must encompass the diversity of the population of modern Scotland. We need a cultural strategy that recognises the breadth of our cultural heritage and gives proper weight to all its aspects.
We must support things according to their cultural value, rather than according to how loud their supporters shout. That has been part of the problem of culture in Scotland in the past. Those who have spoken loudest have received the most support.
I have some sympathy with Mike Russell's amendment. We need to examine far more closely how we spend our money and we must assess how much money is needed for culture and the arts. I accept the minister's comments about the number of reviews that are under way. Those reviews will be meaningful only if, at the end of the process, we are able to discuss the money that is needed to put those reviews into action. Reviews that are reviews alone are meaningless.
Getting the balance between the traditional and the modern is one of the things that we in Scotland struggle with. Sometimes we pretend that our traditional heritage is something that we can only sell or something that we should be ashamed of. We should be proud of our traditional heritage. I welcome the money that has been given to the Piping Centre and its support for traditional music. I hope that, in time, the minister will give due consideration to a report on traditional music that my colleague Cathy Peattie aims to produce on behalf of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. Traditional music is part of our culture and how we should progress it.
We need to consider the Gaelic language. I have not studied the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill in detail, so I am not able to indicate whether I support it. As a Parliament, we need to do more to support Gaelic, not just in existing Gaelic-speaking communities, but across Scotland as a whole.
I welcome the cultural strategy's setting up of the Dewar arts awards. We all know about the late First Minister's interest in the arts and culture. I hope that the trust that has been set up will give money to young people who would not be able to realise their full potential without such support.
I am delighted that the cultural strategy gives sport a much greater emphasis. Sport is an integral part of Scottish culture and, if we miss out sport, we miss out what ordinary working people experience every day as part of their cultural heritage. I hope that members will support the motion.
My Scottish word could be "sook", because I would like to start by welcoming the debate and the good things that the ministers have done. I also welcome the great achievements of the many people who are involved in the arts in Scotland, whether or not they are supported by the Executive.
About 25 years ago, for some obscure reason, I spoke in Corsica at a conference on regional culture in Europe. For the purposes of the conference, Scotland was regarded, erroneously, as a region. I tried to explain that, in Scotland, the highest form of culture was football. I could not claim that now, because although the enthusiasm is there, the quality is not.
There are other arts of great importance. I will be uncharacteristically controversial by suggesting that many Scots have a problem. Recent research has shown that, among young people in Europe, Scots were the friendliest but had the lowest self-esteem. Diffidence is a problem for Scots. In many cases, such diffidence is misplaced—for example, highly talented Scottish students can be reluctant to speak out in seminars.
The arts can play a huge part in building up confidence. As Colin Campbell said, collectively the arts built a lot of the Scottish self-confidence that led to the creation of the Scottish Parliament. The arts can do a lot for individual Scots. We must recognise the huge contribution that the arts can make in that way when we discuss how we fund the arts.
One idea that the Liberal Democrats have proposed is that we bring together the powerful forces of cultural tourism; historical tourism—studying our own history; family history, which is a great industry, especially for people in America studying their Scottish ancestry; and interest in Rabbie Burns, who is grotesquely neglected as a serious poet. We should bring all those forces together in 2009 for the 250th anniversary of the birth of Rabbie Burns and make that a homecoming year for Scots abroad. It would be like a giant gathering of former pupils. We would encourage Scots from all over the world to come here and there would be great celebrations, particularly about Burns. That would support local tourism in the way that Orkney, Shetland and other rural communities do. We could do that in communities throughout Scotland. We would benefit from our own culture, we would benefit the Scots from abroad and we would bring in a lot of money, which would not be harmful.
I support the promotion of community arts in particular. Coming together in artistic activities of any sort—whether it is at a high level such as the Edinburgh Youth Orchestra, which I have the honour to chair, or mediocre local activities—is a great social and collective activity, which we should encourage.
I share the concern that other members have expressed about the reduction in music teaching. I share the interest of Rhona Brankin and others in industrial museums and small museums generally. I think that we could do a lot more to help them, although I know that a certain amount is happening.
I have raised this parochial issue with artistic bodies. In central Scotland we do not get touring arts, because it is assumed that people who live in towns in central Scotland can go to the theatre, opera, concerts or whatever in either Glasgow or Edinburgh. We can make a great contribution to Scottish life through the arts. I welcome the good things in the annual report and I hope that we can do better in the future.
The debate has not been one of the most lively that we have had in the Parliament. The reason for that might be that it has been over-rehearsed. It is the same debate as we had last year and very much the same one as we had the year before. The debate has suffered from the fact that the annual report is perhaps smaller than usual and the debate is a relatively short one, in which we must try to define what we mean by culture when, in many ways, it is becoming increasingly diverse.
In the early part of the debate, the minister again justified Executive policy. That is all in the document and we have read it already. The gist of what he said was that, in his view, culture is important—it is a good thing. That was the extent of the message.
We heard from Mike Russell what was probably the same speech—with different words, on occasion—as we have heard before. If I found anything new in his speech, it was perhaps the suggestion that the Executive did not so much have a strategy as an absence of a strategy. Mike Russell also suggested that there was perhaps an element of conspiracy theory in the report. I would not like to credit the Executive with having as much as that in its report.
Murdo Fraser took us on to Conservative policy. We have presented the same strategy on many occasions in such debates. It is about how essential it is to ensure that there is not a predetermined, top-down strategy for culture, because so much of what we call culture comes from the roots. It comes from the bottom up and it is genuinely demand-led by the society that creates it. We must accept that, if we are to see culture in the important role that it serves—and always has served—in Scotland.
On specific issues, I will refer to what Mary Scanlon and John Farquhar Munro said about what has happened in the Highlands, where a positive decision has been made to ensure that free music and drama teaching is available in schools. Elaine Murray can correct me in her closing speech if I am wrong, but my understanding is that funding for such activities is included in grant-aided expenditure calculations. Therefore, we should blame for the deficiency not the Executive, but the local authorities that fail to address their responsibility by providing such instruction as part of their normal responsibilities.
I worry slightly about the proposal for cultural co-ordinators. It reminds me of the political commissars that used to be on Russian submarines. I am sure that that is not what the minister meant, and that that is just one of the conspiracy theories that run around in my mind. Perhaps the money that has been devoted to the scheme would be better spent on providing free music tuition in our schools.
In certain respects, culture is fragile. Its complexity makes it, at best, delicate. The idea of having a predetermined strategy for culture puts us in danger of trying to hammer in square pegs without first knowing what shape the holes are. In his intervention on Murdo Fraser, the minister said that he did not want to dictate culture; he wanted to facilitate it. That is a radical change from the views that his predecessor expressed last year. I am delighted to hear that there may be some change on that. Culture is evolutionary by its nature. We must never seek to hammer it into any particular box.
Mike Russell gave the reasons why he looks forward to debates on the national cultural strategy. I am just grateful that the ministerial reshuffle means that we will not have to suffer Allan Wilson's painful poetic efforts this year—unless Elaine Murray intends to burst into song in the next five minutes.
Members have mentioned that the annual report differs from the previous one, although not necessarily for the better. The document is almost deliberately more difficult to comprehend, listing as it does many random cultural events in Scotland—many of which, I suspect, would have taken place regardless of the national cultural strategy—such as the universities' initiative to promote training in the creative industries, the Fife writers forum and the series of Italian events at the National Library of Scotland.
If our object in reading the report is to get details of progress on the Executive's "implementation actions", as they were once called, we will have to be content with categories such as "Action since October 2001", "Action to follow", occasionally "More action to follow" and "Action continues". It seems that not all the action comes from the Executive. The report also mentions the friends of Scotland initiative, which the Secretary of State for Scotland, Helen Liddell, launched. However, as no targets have been set for recruiting participants to the programme and no budget has been published for it, to judge its success or otherwise is also difficult.
Is it any wonder that the recent poll of organisations and individuals in the creative industries conducted by The Herald confirmed the frustration and disappointment of those involved in the sector: 74 per cent did not think that the Executive had treated Scotland's arts and culture with the importance that they deserve; 75.5 per cent thought that the Scottish Government did not care enough about art and culture; and not one person who was polled mentioned the national cultural strategy. I am not convinced that the annual report will change those views or address those concerns. We need action that people outside the Parliament will acknowledge to be of real benefit to the arts in Scotland.
The fact remains that other countries seem to value their culture more than we value ours in Scotland. Perhaps that is because they have acknowledged the important role that a vibrant cultural sector plays, not only in benefiting society as a whole, but in economic and tourism terms. I will give members the figures: in the financial year 2002-03, Scottish Executive funding for the Scottish Arts Council is £35 million. That is 0.162 per cent of the Executive's overall budget. Is that the value that we put on culture?
Much mention has been made of language. That is particularly appropriate given the introduction of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, but I will talk about Scots. Quite frankly, St Ninian's Primary School in Stirling is doing far more for Scots with its word from the weans project than the Executive has ever done, which is evidenced today by the number of mentions that it has had and the interest that it has provoked. I particularly appreciated Karen Gillon's opening remarks. If anybody in the Executive is looking for a word to adopt, "havers" might be appropriate.
I want to talk about another issue to do with Scots, and that is people who write in Scots. Books in Scots are usually published by small presses with tiny print runs. It takes, on average, two years to write a novel. If a novel is in Scots, it will sell about 500 copies, earning the author almost nothing. If we do not encourage writing in Scots, the nation will have no future classic literature in our own tongue from this period, and we will also become increasingly divorced from the literature of the past. Even with education, advertising investment and great good luck, the best writing in Scots has only a small market, because Scotland is wee. There are solutions, such as free advertising, translation, which would provide bigger sales for publishers, and long-term funding support specifically for books in Scots.
How could we implement those solutions? There is a joint implementation group for the national cultural strategy. It last met in July. It has met only three times since the cultural strategy was launched two years ago. I do not know how often the implementation sub-groups meet, but I do know that we need another one, on languages, and Scots in particular. I would appreciate the minister's views on that.
Finally, on the SNP amendment, at the meeting of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee on 29 October, when asked about a baseline study of funding and the other needs of the arts in Scotland, which the committee supports and which, I understand, James Boyle of the SAC has publicly endorsed—and which is also the essence of our amendment—the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport said:
"I am not saying that that baseline approach is not a way forward … I am not saying yes or no to a baseline study."—[Official Report, Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 29 October 2002; c 3811.]
The cultural sector in Scotland would be appreciative if the minister could make up his mind soon.
I promise that I will neither quote my own poetry nor sing. Those are both things that I prefer to do in private.
If I was going to adopt a word, which I have not done yet, it might be "scunnered", because I am a bit scunnered by some of the girning that has gone on, and also by some of the misunderstandings that exist. The matter for debate is how the cultural strategy has been progressed, not whether it is a daft policy or, indeed, whether we should have a policy at all.
I was a little confused by some of the misunderstandings about the report. The report does not exist to tick a load of boxes and say what we have done; it is slightly different, and when I saw it I congratulated my colleague Mike Watson, who was behind the way in which it is put together, because it is a refreshing, new and interesting way of producing the data. It is not just a boring table of facts; it has information that people could find useful, examples of good practice, and examples of some things that the Executive is behind. There was no intention in producing the report of trying to claim that the Executive is doing anything—
Will the minister give way?
No, I have only just started and I have not got long, so sit down for the moment.
The national cultural strategy was an aspiration before devolution. I was the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities' cultural spokesperson prior to devolution, and I am well aware of the pressure from the cultural sector at the time for Scotland to develop a national cultural strategy when it got its own Parliament. A national cultural strategy is not about the Government telling people how culture is done; a national cultural strategy has to be a partnership among people at all levels of government, the voluntary sector and the business sector, to which Mary Scanlon referred.
The strategy is not about imposing a policy on people; it develops and enables partnerships and facilitates various art forms. It should also allow the development of our creative industries, which are often an unrecognised sector in the Scottish economy. They generate something like £5 billion in the Scottish economy every year and 70,000 jobs. The Executive sees the importance of developing a framework that will allow the creative industries to flourish and be recognised for their contribution to Scotland.
Mike Russell had some funny things to say and was quite amusing about the annual report. I remind Mike Russell that the Executive supports culture and the arts through other bodies, through non-departmental public bodies such as the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen, and through the national institutions.
Mike Russell seems to object to page 24, which refers to investment in Scottish story telling and the £800,000 that the Scottish Arts Council awarded to the Netherbow Arts Centre, but anything such as that is in accordance with the national cultural strategy.
I am familiar with the funding structure. How does what the minister said tie in with the arm's-length funding approach to which the Government is devoted and which was a feature of two previous cultural strategy debates? Ministers cannot have their cake and eat it.
I am not saying that that is instruction. My reply to the Conservatives is that what is involved is not instruction from the Government, but partnership, such as our partnership with the Scottish Arts Council. The strategy is for the Scottish nation, not the Scottish Executive.
Page 25 of the annual report describes activities that the Scottish Arts Council undertakes through the National Library of Scotland, which is funded by the Scottish Executive. Those actions are important to our culture's development. I will not apologise for the inclusion of examples of good practice from all sectors in our annual report.
Murdo Fraser did not like the fact that we had a strategy. The Tories think that culture will somehow exist out there and will either thrive or go to the wall. The idea that the Government has no role in helping to nurture culture is ridiculous.
How much did the annual report cost to produce? However much that was, would not that money have been better spent on providing free instrumental tuition in schools, for example?
I am pleased to tell Murdo Fraser that the document and its web conversion cost £18,000. Unfortunately, that amount would not go far towards funding free musical instrument tuition in schools, which might cost several hundred thousand pounds. Many members referred to music tuition, which the Executive considers important. As we have said, we intend to make an announcement about music tuition in school in the near future. I hope that that will be of interest.
Murdo Fraser said that the annual report contains no picture of the Edinburgh tattoo. The national cultural strategy contains a picture of the tattoo. I do not criticise him for not knowing that, because he was not an MSP when the document was published, but we have referred to the tattoo. All parts of our cultural heritage are important.
Members made many good points. Some expressed concern about arts funding—we all acknowledge that concern. I will give a few statistics. The culture and sport portfolio receives £170 million a year at present. After the Scottish budget 2002, that figure will rise to £217 million in 2005-06. The Executive will give the cultural sector funding of £156 million this year. That figure will rise by 18 per cent to £184 million in 2005-06.
Members referred to spending in other countries. The projected spend in England in 2005-06 is £9 a head. I admit that, under the previous budget, spending in Scotland would have been £7.90 a head, but if we include the £10.8 million from the Scottish budget 2002, that figure rises to £11 a head. If we include funding for Gaelic, which we all agree is an extremely important part of Scottish culture, whatever our view on the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, the sum rises to £13.90 per capita. It cannot be said that we do not appreciate the arts or that we do not fund the arts.
I understand the point about pounds per head—I think that that is what the minister was talking about; it is rather hard to hear her. However, the reality is that the percentage of gross domestic product that is spent on culture is dramatically lower in Scotland. Will the minister deal with that?
Mike Russell is aware of the different pressures in the Scottish budget, which relate to geography and other matters. We are ahead of England on expenditure per person on the arts. I make no apology for that.
I do not have time to deal with all the points that were made. I appreciate what Mr Russell said about the level of noise in the chamber, which is always a problem at this time of day.
Order. The minister has asked for some calm in the chamber. Could we subdue the conversations until business is finished?
Unfortunately, I am not possessed with as loud a voice as certain other members in the chamber, so it is more difficult for me to make myself heard.
I turn to the traditional arts. I look forward to Cathy Peattie's report, to which Karen Gillon referred. As a result of my intervention on Linda Fabiani, members will be aware that we have been funding the traditional arts. We will continue to examine how we can promote the traditional sector.
Donald Gorrie rightly said that the arts sector has important linkages with tourism. That is one of the reasons why tourism, culture and sport have been brought together.
I commend the document to members and I urge them to reject both the amendments. As my colleague Mike Watson said, the Tory one is silly and the SNP motion is unnecessary. I commend the motion to the chamber.