Cultural Commission
The next item of business is a debate on the report of the Cultural Commission.
I am pleased to launch the debate and look forward to hearing members' views on the report, which was produced in June by the Cultural Commission. I am genuinely interested in hearing what members have to say, which is why there is no formal motion for debate. I believe that we should devote all the available time to discussing the way forward for culture and the arts in Scotland. That gives us collectively nearly one minute for each recommendation of the Cultural Commission and allows me approximately five seconds on each. Colleagues will not be surprised to hear that I do not intend to attempt to consider many of the recommendations specifically; I want, rather, to give them some idea of where our thinking is heading.
I welcome the commission's report and am grateful to its members and all those who contributed their views to it. I can safely say that it was the biggest listening exercise on culture that has ever been undertaken in Scotland. I have been seeking and observing reaction to the report from the key players in the sector. As might be expected, reactions range from approval for selected elements and proposals through to opposition to other recommendations. However, I have not detected an overall consensus, other than that we need to move forward quickly to action. I intend to do that. The debate will mark the formal end of the listening stage. I will return to Parliament later this year to announce our plan of action for the sector.
What do I see as being the big issues? We need to improve how the public sector supports the arts and culture. I refer not just to the Executive, but to key partners, such as local authorities. Many local authorities are doing great things for culture and I would like all councils to do the same. I will work with local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to achieve that.
We need to ensure that in all parts of Scotland people have the opportunity to participate in a wide range of cultural activities if they wish, and to see the best in the performing and visual arts. Our national companies will have a key role to play in that process. Whatever organisational structure is put in place, those companies will be expected to cater for audiences throughout the country.
We need more co-operation and closer working between public bodies and with the voluntary and private sectors, but we also need to be clear about what the responsibility of the Scottish Government is. That is the issue on which I want to concentrate. I believe that we have an obligation to do three main things at national level. The first is to provide support for bodies and individuals who represent the pinnacle of performing talent at national level. The second is to secure the means of developing and nurturing that talent by providing opportunities for participation in a wide range of cultural activities. The third is to support and enhance Scotland's world-beating national collections. I will say a little about each of those points.
First, on performing talent, in 2003 the First Minister spoke of the links between culture and confidence. He also said much about aspiration and he said that all of us, especially our young people, must have something to aim for and emulate. The pinnacle of achievement that aspiring young performers should aim for is to be the best in Scotland, the best in the United Kingdom and the best in the world. I suggest that Scotland's national companies must aim to fulfil all three of those aspirations.
We must think radically and look beyond the current definition of national companies. We have, of course, already started on that. In the National Theatre of Scotland we have a model that targets funds specifically at production rather than at support of structures. That is a great example for promoting performing excellence and for distributing arts funding to properly showcase the finest talent.
I am determined that the Executive's future spending plans will target investment to programmes and delivery, rather than to unwieldy or unnecessary bureaucracies, which are a drain on resources. I am equally determined that our financial backing will support artistic and cultural activity and not stifle it.
Scotland's current model of cultural infrastructure has grown up as an accident of history rather than through a consistent nationally agreed plan. Solutions that once served us well are no longer fit for purpose. We must develop an infrastructure that we know can do its job. That means change—perhaps even a radical overhaul—but I am not convinced that the commission's preferred solution is the right one.
Of course, if we are to have world-class national companies we must nurture home-grown talent. My ambition is that the stars whom we see performing in our national productions should include Scots from all walks of life and all backgrounds.
During this year's Edinburgh international festival I attended—as did some colleagues who are in the chamber—Scottish Ballet's Balanchine programme. Three members of the company came through the school of dance that is based in Glasgow's Knightswood Secondary School, which is very encouraging.
Scotland has always been a hotbed of artistic talent, but I believe that we need a new approach to help people who have proven ability to realise their potential. The current structures are not designed specifically to support that.
One of the strongest sections of the commission's report was on education. I intend to work with my colleague the Minister for Education and Young People to see which of the ideas would fit with and complement the Scottish education system. We will examine closely the evaluation work that the Scottish Arts Council is currently undertaking into the role of cultural co-ordinators and we will work with COSLA to see whether mainstreaming of cultural co-ordinators is the right way forward.
We should provide a ready route for the development of flair and talent that leads from the formal education system to levels of international performing excellence. The supporting role of schools should be pivotal in the early stages. Further progress should be developed through bodies such as the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama and the new screen academy, which should take proven talent on to the highest level. That must apply to all art forms; not only the performing arts, but to literature, design and film which, frankly, have in my view been overlooked in the past.
I am interested in identifying ways to recognise and honour Scotland's major creative artists and cultural icons; I have asked the Scottish Arts Council to explore proposals for such a scheme. We set up the Dewar arts awards to help nurture up-and-coming talent. Additionally, the Scottish Arts Council's creative Scotland awards currently promote great ideas from established artists. It is a unique scheme that has been well received by the sector. Other countries celebrate their greatest artists; I believe that ours deserve the same recognition for their outstanding contributions. We have already given Edwin Morgan the title of Makar—a role that he deserves and which he has filled with distinction. I want to build on that and, over time, to create a roll-call of Scotland's cultural excellence that can act as a source of national pride.
The third responsibility of the Government is support and enhancement of our superb national collections. Those should be innovatively presented and made accessible to as many people as possible throughout the country. The collections must be used to excite, inform and educate not only Scots at home but people throughout the world.
A common factor in all three of the national responsibilities is access. I argue that there is no shortage of opportunity to enjoy culture. In fact, in Scotland at the moment it is constantly festival time. We set up EventScotland to help and support new and existing events around Scotland and it is doing just that. It is about to announce financial support for another 17 events around Scotland. If we secure the Commonwealth games in 2014, that will be a festival of culture as well as of sport.
We can do more, however. Our desire to boost access led us to ask the commission to explore the notion of rights and entitlements. The commission's report gives a comprehensive account of developments in this area and proposes legislation as the route to establishing such an approach. I am looking carefully at those proposals. I believe that we need to be practical and clear about what we are trying to achieve and about whether legislative change can contribute to that end. I am interested in testing and exploring initiatives, which seems to be the best way of making certain that what is implemented will actually work. I will be particularly interested in learning lessons from the cultural pledge that Highland Council—inspired by the celebration of Scotland's year of highland culture in 2007—is developing for young people.
I am also considering whether cultural standards and entitlements can succeed in developing an appetite for culture. I want to explore the reasons for participation—and for the lack of it—and I want to look more at how community planning can be used to encourage communities to plan for their cultural requirements.
I want to ensure that we exploit new technologies as a means of promoting Scotland's culture and developing audiences. I am therefore looking carefully at the commission's proposal for a national box office. VisitScotland is developing a pan-Scotland what's-on database for culture and sport that will help visitors to plan their trips. We may extend that online support to provide electronic ticketing for events around the country. I believe that the venues and companies that receive public subsidy have a special responsibility. It is not enough for them to focus only on the audiences that they have already; they need also to reach out to others.
It is not only the public sector that can play its part. Some private sector businesses already do a lot to sponsor and promote the arts. Given that all businesses benefit from the cultural life of the places in which they operate, the question is what more the private sector can do to support culture.
Another crucial question is how the many thousands of volunteers in the arts can be helped. I would particularly like to hear colleagues' views on that subject. In considering the issue, we will be mindful of the report that the Enterprise and Culture Committee produced earlier this year.
Since the commission reported, acres of newsprint have thundered with comments about future funding for arts and culture. I have certainly been impressed by the scale of the figures that have been suggested, but that is easy for someone to do when they do not have to make tough and sometimes unpopular decisions on prioritising Government funding. Only when we have determined our final response to the review will we know what to cost. Clearly, a detailed assessment of the financial implications will be necessary. We will look at that as we deliberate on our implementation plans.
A minute ago the minister mentioned the private sector. Clearly there are great chunks of cash out there. Does the minister have any ideas as to how we might encourage the private sector—rich benefactors and so on—to put more of their money into the arts? What carrots can we use to encourage them to do so?
That is a big subject at which Arts and Business Scotland is adept and at which it continues to work. We will have to examine why people give their money in that way. Usually it is because they have some interest in a particular institution or in a project that an institution happens to run.
We need to look at the subject in terms of all our institutions and to find out whether there are ways of supporting culture better or of taking matters forward in more detail. However, I can tell members that our ambitions are based on the presumption that others will join us and that they will meet their respective obligations.
Because we are committed to culture, we plan to take decisive action. A lot of uninformed comment has been made about the Executive's approach to culture. It has been said that we are devoid of ideas and that we are averse to taking risks. Vicky Featherstone at the National Theatre of Scotland would not agree with that. It has also been claimed that we are philistines. It is strange, in that case, that the incoming director general of the National Galleries of Scotland said on his appointment that the Executive should be applauded for showing an interest in culture, particularly at a time when many other European Governments are doing the reverse.
We are lambasted for not providing enough money. I do not think that the National Library of Scotland would have agreed with that when it came to acquiring the Murray archive, or that the National Museums of Scotland would have agreed when it came to securing a Concorde for Scotland.
That we do not care about our heritage is another claim, yet we have taken decisive steps to secure the future of the Gaelic language and Gaelic culture. In addition, we are investing heavily in Scotland's year of highland culture and the 2009 year of homecoming, which will celebrate the enduring legacy of our national bard, Robert Burns—a true national and international icon.
Of course, we have also been accused of not listening. I assure members that we are listening and that we are taking action. The Government cares about culture. We want to do all that we can to make Scotland a hotbed of cultural talent and a nation that celebrates its cultural achievements. I hope that everyone here today can sign up to that ambition.
I congratulate the Cultural Commission on its report. I confess that I was somewhat sceptical about whether it would be able to produce a report that was focused enough. Given that the report contains 131 recommendations, some of my scepticism was well placed. The report should have had more focus, but its lack of focus reflects the commission's broad remit. Many of the recommendations are worthy and will direct the debate on cultural policy in the months and years to come.
We cannot delay making progress on many of the issues that the report addresses. One key issue is that the Executive must be clearer about what exactly it seeks to achieve with its cultural policy. The policy should serve to release the potential of the people of Scotland—which is fundamental to our national identity—and to enhance and build upon their creativity, improve the economy and make Scotland a better and more exciting place to live.
A good starting point for the Executive would be to focus on some of the issues that have been highlighted in the report, particularly the possibility of legislating on cultural rights. If we are to be ambitious about what we want to achieve with our cultural policy, we should underpin the right of Scotland's citizens to achieve their full cultural and creative potential. I hope that when the minister publishes her full response later this year she will say whether a bill will be introduced to achieve that.
In the course of the commission's consideration of evidence, and following publication of its report, there was quite a bit of debate about structure. The commission was correct to recognise that the Government must not just view culture as an add-on and that it should, rather, place culture in the main stream of Government thinking in order to promote cultural awareness and creativity, which are at the core of any self-confident and healthy society.
I agree with the minister that the commission went wrong with its preferred option for structural change in the sector. Its proposal that there should be two competing bodies—one dealing with funding and another dealing with priorities—is a recipe for conflict and simply would not work. If we are to widen the scope of artists' contribution to society, we require a new flexible and proactive body for the arts in Scotland that recognises the primacy of artists in the whole process. Without teachers there can be no schools, and without doctors and nurses there is no health care, so without artists there will be no art. We need a process that places greater focus on artists, not on structure for structure's sake. Only then will we enable those artists to contribute to wider society. That means that we need to be prepared to invest money in, and support, art for the sake of art.
If we are to get the process correct nationally, we must first ensure that we get it right locally. Our local authorities have a responsibility to provide cultural leadership in their communities. One of the most effective ways in which we could ensure that they do so would be to ensure that cultural activity is central to the community planning process. Many people's first engagement in cultural activity takes place at local level. People must have a meaningful opportunity to participate in planning for cultural activities in their communities. Communities must feel that the process is purposeful and that it supports local artists and allows for the proper exchange of skills.
Does the member agree that, as presently framed in legislation, the local authorities' role is a bit pick and mix in that they do not have to deal with the arts? Is there a case for hardening up the legislation to give local authorities a much firmer remit on the arts?
Mr Stone may be aware that the Cultural Commission's report recommends that the process should be underpinned with regulation or legislation and that the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report on its inquiry into arts in the community recommended that we ensure that cultural matters be embedded in the community planning process. I hope that the minister will make progress on those recommendations in the coming months.
Another key theme that the commission identified was the importance of our education system to effective delivery of cultural policy throughout the country. Too often, Scotland is ambivalent about its indigenous culture. The study of Scottish history, music, language and literature are often viewed as being of marginal importance. At present, of the five national priorities in education, there is no mention of culture. Although Scotland has internationally recognised writers, Scottish literature is not routinely used to form the basis of literature teaching in our schools. We must ensure that we use the creative talents that we have in Scotland as a foundation for learning in our schools.
The Cultural Commission's report highlights the chronic underfunding in the cultural sector, which must be seriously addressed if we are to make progress; if it is not, the difficulties will continue. In the past six years, we have had a national strategy, two reviews and a commission, so it is understandable that the cultural community is somewhat sceptical about whether there will be any effective change now. We need decisions to be made about what will happen and we need the minister to take action and show leadership.
We believe that a strong cultural base is necessary for the health of our nation. Arts and culture are important for each individual. A basic foundation course that was attached to lifelong learning would inspire and educate some people and individuals would make their own choices of what they like and do not like.
The excellent brief from the Scottish Museums Council states:
"The reality for the user of cultural services in Scotland is a somewhat disjointed and potentially confusing experience. There are cultural black spots in local delivery and areas with a duplication of services."
I am afraid that that is often correct. As anyone who travels the length and breadth of Scotland will know, the black spots are not in the more affluent areas of our major cities, but tend to be in the deprived areas and rural towns. In contrast, the duplication of services occurs because there is too much administration in the centres and not enough direct funding for the arts and artists.
We should certainly talk about the importance of culture to tourism, which has become our biggest industry. It is vital that cultural attractions such as museums, libraries, theatres and centres of music exist throughout Scotland to cater for the increased market in tourism. I was interested in the minister's wish to involve VisitScotland as a ticket agent—that will be fine as long as the tickets are for the right shows, although I do not know what other ticket agents in Scotland will think about the idea.
Rural Scotland needs more cultural focal points to celebrate the present and the future as well as local museums that tell exciting stories of the history in each area. Historical tourism and archaeological tourism exist in abundance in Scotland and play a distinctive role in the make-up of Scottish culture; they should therefore play a lucrative role in Scottish tourism.
Does the member agree that as well as catering for tourists, it is important—as the minister has said—to build that appreciation of our culture among our local people?
I certainly agree with that.
The brief from the Scottish Arts Council indicates where many problems lie. It says that over the past 50 years its role and remit has greatly broadened but that the funding has not. The SAC says that the introduction of lottery funding by the Conservatives in 1995 gave increased opportunity for it to widen its investment in community projects, so the arts flourished. That has been successful to such a degree that lottery funds are currently oversubscribed by 100 per cent. The problem is that in 1995 the SAC provided core funding for 73 arts organisations on a budget of £23.7 million, but 10 years later it supports 108 organisations with a budget of £40.2 million. From those figures, anyone can see that its system is overstretched. Unfortunately, opera, music, dance, film and theatre in Scotland are suffering as a result. The fact that the lottery was used by the Labour Government for pet political projects such as land reform, instead of the projects for which it was originally designed, does not help because there is now less money for arts than there was previously.
The SAC has difficulty in distributing too little to too many, which is why the tragedy of Scottish Opera has happened. The Jonas report that showed that funds for Scottish Opera were inadequate was ignored, and as a result the highest quality cultural icon that Scotland has possessed for the past 40 years has been severely damaged.
We do not support the commission's preferred option of setting up a culture body and a culture fund because we do not believe that that would be of benefit to the public or to artists. The National Museums of Scotland, The National Galleries of Scotland and the National Library of Scotland have worked well with direct funding and direct accountability to the minister; I would suggest that Scottish Opera, Scottish Ballet, the National Theatre and even Scottish Screen should perhaps join that club. That would mean that adequate funding and a proper long-term strategy could be determined directly by the minister for the arts and the leaders of the main Scottish cultural organisations, with no need for expensive middlemen. That would also enable the SAC or any other arm's-length delivery service to concentrate its resources on developing new themes for other branches of culture.
Culture Scotland and the culture fund will just necessitate more and more staff and large administration and accommodation budgets, which simply eat up money that could be used for direct funding of arts and artists, which is what we want. We think that the commission's political notion of enshrining cultural rights in law is impractical and ridiculous and would be a waste of Parliament's time. People already have rights to express themselves, which are noted in the United Nations's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and local authorities already have a duty to provide cultural experiences. The problem with local authorities is that often half their arts and leisure budget goes on sport, leaving little for other sorts of culture. However, that is another debate.
Let us never forget the importance of the voluntary and private sectors. The voluntary sector is a vital but often unsung element of Scotland's cultural scene. It is a source of huge experience, energy and talent. Voluntary groups are usually highly motivated by love of the subject, and therefore help to ensure the best possible access to cultural activity in Scotland. A comparatively small investment, covering the key issues of training, co-ordination and help to volunteers would bring a disproportionate payback to Scotland's cultural wealth. More funding should be available for that sector.
The approach to the private sector in Scotland also needs to be rethought. True partnerships between business and culture, founded on strategic co-operation for mutual benefit, will benefit all. Less than £10 million is invested in Scotland annually from the private sector and most of that is spent in Glasgow or Edinburgh. In America, private sponsorship is huge; that could be the case here if tax incentives were used to encourage individuals and corporate bodies to get involved in stimulating culture and arts in Scotland.
We all have to be selective in what we say. It is slightly like turning "Tristan und Isolde" into "The Minute Waltz". However, I would like to concentrate on what I see as the main issues.
We have to persuade people to take culture more seriously, including many of our colleagues in Parliament, ministers and some Government and council departments. Cultural activity is, in itself, good for people and is also a good investment. We must therefore pursue it more vigorously.
For a start, the minister—who has made an excellent effort in starting to approach the issue—should have a national advisory group. I do not mean that there should be yet another consultation process, but there should be a group of people who would give her advice. The group could draw on all parties represented in this chamber—which would make it a collective effort, rather than a matter of party warfare—COSLA, which has made some interesting proposals, and people from large and small cultural organisations. Being able to get advice from such quarters would help the minister to get ahead.
Another thing that the minister needs is an audit of existing provision. Nobody knows what on earth exists across Scotland. We need a sort of Baedeker's guide to what exists in the way of cultural arrangements and activities.
The Executive's position needs to be strengthened. I am not sure about the quality and quantity of the professional support that the minister gets at the moment.
The minister—as ministers do—has quoted the success stories that have arisen from provision of funding. However, as I understand it, our drama companies get about half the money that the equivalent English ones do, our orchestral players are among the worst paid in Europe and there is a serious lack of sustained funding. We have to invest more because that investment will pay us back. Instead of pouring money into a big black hole in the health service, if we were to invest in culture, sport and things like that, we would get a huge return in relation to people's happiness and health, the economy and so on.
The national companies should be directly funded. Given that such funding seems to work quite well with museums, galleries and so on, why would it not work with opera, ballet and orchestral music? It could also work in relation to the major drama companies, particularly those that tour and which find it difficult to get money from local government. We must regard money that is spent in that way as investments in the buildings and the activities.
We have to ensure that our national bodies—museums, opera companies or whatever—spread themselves around the country more. For example, the National Library of Scotland should lead a sort of collective of local libraries in relation to exhibitions and that type of thing. In that way, culture could be spread around the country much better than it is. For example, this year Glasgow City Council helped Dumfries and Galloway Council to set up a good impressionist exhibition. The Scottish Executive helped, Dumfries and Galloway supplied many volunteers and Glasgow produced the pictures. Everyone benefited, particularly the 60,000 or so people who visited the exhibition.
The key point that I would like to make—it was one of the good points in the commission's report—is that we need to have local cultural strategies created by local cultural partnerships between councillors, officials and the people who are interested in culture of all sorts, including individual and group activities, professional and amateur activities, museums and so on. There is huge energy in communities that could be stimulated if we were to go about things in the right way.
Some councils, such as Glasgow City Council, approach culture in a good way but others, which I had better not name, approach it in a bad way. If we are to do what I suggest and give a lot of power to local communities, there has to be a way to ensure that a good approach is taken. For example, Government monitors—or whatever they might be called—could ensure that people are performing as well as they should be.
We should place much more emphasis on education. Culture should be at the centre of education—not on the periphery as it is at the moment—because it makes people more creative and appreciative. We should nurture the talent that we have in our schools through our colleges and so on, and then we should give creative people a career path, which we do not do at the moment.
Publishing is an activity that is grossly neglected by the Government. The industry does not get any help, and Scottish books and writers are not properly represented in libraries and bookshops.
We should closely scrutinise quangos—if possible, we should get rid of some—and we should reduce bureaucracy. We should have no more consultants ever again. Also, we should try to attract funding from other sources, as the minister said. We have a great opportunity, and I hope that we can work together to take it.
We move to the open debate. I will try to allow as many back benchers as possible to speak. Members will have a tight six minutes each for speeches.
I draw members' attention to my registered interest as a playwright with a very small income. That is relevant to the position of artists in Scotland today.
Eighty per cent of visual artists earn less than £5,000 a year from their profession. A Scottish Arts Council survey in 2000 discovered that 50 per cent of professional writers earned less than £5,000 a year. The same survey in 2005 revealed that 57 per cent of writers earn less than £3,000 a year—the situation is getting worse for artists in Scotland. That figure does not represent young hopefuls; two thirds of those who earn that miserable amount have been writing professionally for more than 10 years. As has been said, although one or two artists may earn a fortune, it is almost impossible for artists to earn a simple living. The Cultural Commission recognises the fact that creative individuals are among the lowest earners in society and calls on the Executive to provide additional financial support and to raise the profile of creative individuals. The report recognises that support and encouragement for artists
"is a key factor in delivering cultural opportunities across Scotland."
I think that it is the key to a thriving culture sector.
The commission's central findings on delivery structures are now dead in the water. At the conference that I organised in the Parliament last week for arts and artists organisations, there may have been no consensus on a preferred national structure, but there was unanimity against the commission's preferred option. No one believes that the bureaucracy costs would not increase; no one wants the years of disruption that setting up and bedding down such a system would take.
The present structures can be improved and the Scottish Arts Council can and must become less bureaucratic in its dealings with artists. Last year, the Enterprise and Culture Committee heard about the amount of time that voluntary arts organisations spend filling in forms for very small amounts of money. The real requirement is not for structural change, but for better investment—the commission's request for 1 per cent of funding to be spent on arts and culture.
Where art has a political purpose—art in hospitals, in prisons and in schools, for example—it should be paid for out of the budgets for those places. The Scottish Arts Council budget should be reserved for supporting art that is challenging, innovative and aiming only at excellence. Art in pursuit of social or political agendas may also be excellent, but it must serve its agenda first and should be paid for by those who set the agenda. It is up to the minister to argue the social case for funding for the arts in Cabinet and she has all the facts and figures on her side in doing that.
As Donald Gorrie said, the arts community has had enough of consultation strategy documents and best-value reviews. In the game of musical chairs that has so bedevilled the culture portfolio over the past few years, the music has stopped and the minister is in the chair. It is decision time. I welcome her speech, which promised real new steps forward, and I congratulate her on giving her first reactions to the report to the Parliament—that is worthy of note.
However, as the commission's report recommends, let us now see a procurement fund from the Executive to enable libraries to purchase books that are published or written in Scotland. The cross-party group on Scottish writing and publishing, which met on Tuesday night, made it clear that that should be a priority. Let us have more Scottish literature taught in Scottish schools—another priority for the cross-party group. Let us have cultural activity recognised and adopted as the key methodology for all children and young people in education. The minister is right: the education section of the report is particularly strong and deserves to be taken up.
There must be greater awareness in the tourism industry of the potential of the cultural sector. VisitScotland should have a strategy for marketing Scotland's literary festivals.
Culture should be a key strategic theme in community planning. Let us have greater stability of funding. Last week, I visited the Scottish Maritime Museum in Irvine. The museum has an important collection with huge potential, yet there is no way of developing it because year-on-year funding bars the museum from applying to the Heritage Lottery Fund and other trusts.
Let us have cultural rights for all, including people in old people's homes, long-stay hospitals and prisons, who have great difficulty in accessing the arts. Let us see Government championing the arts. I would like cultural and artists' organisations involved in decision making. We have had business in the Parliament conferences and we have had a science in the Parliament event, so why should we not have an Executive-sponsored arts in the Parliament event?
Jennie Lee said:
"What the arts need from Government is money, policy, and silence."
I see that the minister knows the quotation well. I suggest that over the past six years the arts have received little money, no strategy, but a great deal of noise. The arts world, many of whose representatives are in the gallery this afternoon, awaits the minister's next announcement with great interest.
I, too, must remind the chamber of my registered interests as chairperson of the Scottish Library and Information Council and as a trustee of the Fife Historic Buildings Trust.
I welcome the report and find myself in broad agreement with most members—that is what I sometimes like about debates that have no motion to be decided on—although I do not agree with everything that everybody has said.
It is important to remind ourselves of the reasons for the review. I am sorry to have to disagree with Chris Ballance, but the review showed the top-level commitment by the Executive to the role and place of culture in Scotland's life. The report, substantial as it is, demonstrates a great deal of work by many dedicated, committed people, many of whom are in the gallery this afternoon.
As the minister said, the report is the start of a process of action; it is not an end product and must not be seen as such. There are bits in it that people do not agree with. However, it contains many good ideas that do not need legislation or substantial structural change, but require focus.
Some of the proposals are already being carried out. Where the report perhaps falls down a little is in being overbureaucratic, as other members have pointed out. It does not give sufficient recognition to individuals, communities and organisations that are doing a great deal of good, innovative work.
I congratulate the Executive on what it has done so far. I have seen in my constituency of Central Fife what the Scottish Arts Council's cultural co-ordinators in schools have done. I have seen what has been done with lottery funding on the people's war project in Livingston, where school pupils produced a superb newsreel. I praise the work that has been done on the new national theatre. I welcome the support for festivals, the events strategy, the academy of artists, the cultural icons awards and the extension of the Irish aos dána concept. Those have either been done or are being done.
I agree with the minister and the many other members who have said that we do not need yet another quango to deal with the arts and that we do not require legislation. We can examine our structures to ensure that they are streamlined, as Chris Ballance and others said.
Action has to be centred on several key principles. The first of those is standards and quality assurance—although I am perhaps not thinking of Donald Gorrie's cultural inspectors calling. The Scottish Library and Information Council already has a quality assurance scheme for libraries, which it is now ready to pilot. The scheme will enable users to understand their entitlements and local authorities to demonstrate quality. Perhaps that is a starting point, from which we might see whether the scheme can be rolled out elsewhere.
One serious issue that is perhaps missing from the report is skills development. The announcement last week of the sector skills agreement for the audiovisual industries, through Skillset Scotland, is a key milestone in encouraging quality in arts and culture provision. On reflection, the commission might have felt that that ought to have been included. I hope that the minister will take that on board.
On equality of access and entitlement for all, Chris Ballance and others have mentioned various sectors of society—the young and the old and minority and non-English language speakers—as well as non-traditional arts and cultures. Donald Gorrie and others highlighted the right to a basic level of quality service across Scotland. I would also highlight at this point issues around new media, archives, digitisation and web-based information. The people's network initiative has done a great deal to give access to worldwide information, including information on arts and culture, right across Scotland. Work is also being done to set up a national photographic archive for Scotland.
People also need access to the best work of all our national companies. Everybody has the right to a quality experience, not just those who live in or have easy access to cities. In supporting those national bodies, how do we preserve the best of what is local? We cannot do that without the involvement and co-operation of local authorities, which operate venues and, of course, run education services and hold the funding. Local authorities are the first point of call for many services, such as libraries, museums and archives.
Next week, I will attend the launch of the first integrated smart card in Scotland, which will give people in Fife access to a whole range of services to which they are entitled. People could use such cards to access their cultural entitlement. Local community planning is key to that, as it brings together health, tourism and economic development. Michael Matheson and others have spoken about getting business involved. That is certainly the way to do things locally, although nationally we might need another solution. I hope that, from today, the implementation of the many good ideas contained in the report will begin.
I find this a difficult debate, because there is just so much to talk about and not enough time to do everything justice. "Culture" is such a catch-all word. It covers television, classical drama, opera, folk and traditional music, jazz, dancing and ballet. It is difficult to define what culture is: one person's idea of culture might be another person's idea of absolute horror if they had to sit through it for a couple of hours.
The Cultural Commission put in a lot of hard work—and, gosh, what a huge document it came up with—to try to define culture and somehow to create a route map to reach that destination. Culture is something to which everyone seems to aspire—every man, woman and child in the country will apparently be rejoicing in their love of and participation in culture. I am not all that convinced that that is realistic, admirable intention though it is. I am also not convinced that we can be too prescriptive about culture—telling people what they will learn to enjoy. I remain to be convinced that legislating for cultural rights will take us beyond the initial euphoria of saying that everyone has a right to culture. Nevertheless, I remain open minded.
The role of government, both national and local, is to ensure access to cultural activities of varying kinds, as well as to ensure that awareness is raised of the different aspects of what we call culture. There might well be a lot of people out there who would enjoy certain things but never get the chance to participate in them or to see whether they like them. One of the keys to that, which comes out strongly in the commission's report, is the education system, which is where we should begin. I like the idea of a permanent, nationally consistent culture co-ordinators scheme. Christine May talked about Fife in that respect. Some of the cultural co-ordinators that we have had have done a great job in raising awareness among schoolchildren of the potential for performing and for just enjoying.
Schools are doing a lot just now—some teachers are doing an awful lot—as are our national companies. A primary school in East Kilbride has Scottish Opera come along every year. I am privileged to have gone along a couple of times to see the sterling work that Scottish Opera does in communities, which does not often get mentioned.
The issue is about taking culture—I am starting to dislike using the word—or the arts into schools and letting people see the opportunities for participation and enjoyment. However, it is also about ensuring that schoolchildren are taken out of school, whether as part of curricular or extracurricular activities, to all different forms of culture. That might involve visiting Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, which I did many times when I was at school—I know that other members did, too—visiting the national museums to see the national collections or learning how to use libraries. All those things start to form children's views of culture.
Recommendation 11 in the education section, on page 76 of the report, asks
"That a national strategy for educational materials, visits and experiences supported by companies and institutions across Scotland and co-ordinated by Learning Teaching Scotland be developed."
That is sound reasoning and logic and we can move forward with it.
Local authorities have a big role to play. I would love to see in every town an arts centre or theatre—a physical presence for the arts that is used for all types of culture, whether storytelling, literature clubs or performances. People in every community should have somewhere where they can enjoy culture at a reasonable cost.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am just winding up.
Raising awareness must go right through the education system from primary schools to secondary schools and into further education. I make a plea for us to fund theatre companies such as 7:84—Wildcat used to do this as well—which go round schools and education establishments and into communities with political messages. We have to fund that and get folk thinking and stimulated politically. If they are stimulated politically, they will be stimulated in all other walks of life. It is far too easy to say that the companies are going against the establishment. I think that there is a bit of that, but I know that the funding for 7:84 is at risk. It has done things that I think are pretty awful, too, but surely theatre should be about challenging perceptions and making people think a bit differently.
I will finish there, much as I could talk for ever, even though I thought that I would have hardly anything to say when I stood up.
Today we are talking about culture, but the truth is that the voice of Scottish culture speaks with a passion and an eloquence that no politician's speech can ever match. There is one spectacular example of when this chamber has really given vent to that voice—the day of the opening of the building. I ask members to cast their minds back to the fantastic performances by Eddi Reader and Nicola Benedetti, Liz Lochhead's cheeky rendition of Edwin Morgan's words and that moment when we joined hands in the camaraderie that can only ever be "Auld Lang Syne". It was a microcosm that captured what Scottish culture means to this nation, this Parliament and to us as human beings. I know that I was not alone in wiping tears from my eyes that day and I make no apology for saying so. The day was about pride, emotion, confidence, identity and sheer enjoyment—things that are hard to describe and virtually impossible to measure, but so real when experienced and so central to the well-being of our people and the success of our nation. That is what today is about.
Make no mistake, we have travelled a long way since devolution in recognising the centrality of cultural activity in Scotland. From the publication of the first national culture strategy through to the First Minister's St Andrew's day speech and the Cultural Commission's report, Government has pushed the boundaries of thinking and crossed the Rubicon to recognise that culture is not a side issue or a fringe activity, but entirely consistent with, and a vital contributor to, the economic and social well-being of our nation.
Having recrafted that narrative—and I endorse what others have said—we must now work to make a reality of those aspirations. It would be a tragedy if momentum were lost in the months to come through a preoccupation with structures, indecision or bureaucracy or through yet more finessing of strategies, measurement or process. Let us be honest: it is not just Government that has such tendencies; all organisations do. Indeed, as individuals, we sometimes demonstrate those traits, too.
Of course money and investment must be at the heart of the debate and of course more investment is needed, but it would be quite wrong if we became preoccupied simply with numbers and with those parts of national or local budgets that are specifically earmarked for the arts. The big prize is to embed culture and creativity in mainstream planning and investment across public spending and in the private sector.
The Enterprise and Culture Committee's arts in the community inquiry has been mentioned. The committee was unequivocal in highlighting the virtuous circle that connects culture with economic growth, individual health and the well-being of communities. We do not need yet more evidence and evaluation to tell us that cultural and creative activity can help to foster enterprise and innovation, to improve health and even to reduce crime. However, we now need to make a step change in putting that thinking into practice.
We have much to build on. Let me give just a few examples of what we might do. Local cultural co-ordinators have rightly been mentioned, as they are delivering results in many areas. However, there are only around 75 such posts in Scotland, compared with more than 600 active schools co-ordinators. We can and must extend coverage.
What about the national health service, which has a budget that is rapidly approaching £10 billion? The value of arts and culture in preventing and even treating ill health, especially mental health, is increasingly recognised. There is growing evidence that such approaches are often more clinically effective and cost effective than many conventional medical solutions. Clinicians, too, increasingly express that view. Greater Glasgow NHS Board now has an arts officer who works to develop arts and health projects and to embed the arts in the work of the health service in the Glasgow area. We must ask what other NHS boards are doing in that regard.
Excellent work is being done in criminal justice. However, instead of constantly crying for more police officers, we should recognise the need for more community arts-based activities to help to change behaviour and to make our communities safer.
Great work is going on with our youngsters, but I make a plea for the very young. A baby can be stimulated through colours, music and movement from the moment that it enters the world and, many would argue, within the womb. However, too many children are halfway through primary school before they get access to opportunities for instrumental tuition, drama and the like. Projects such as bookstart, which puts books into babies' hands from when their stubby fingers can first manage to turn the pages, make a genuine difference. We have such projects in some communities; we need them in all.
There is so much more to say and so much more that needs to be done, but I end on the overarching point that many other members have made: we must now move from debate to action. The political will is not in question, but, just as we aspire to greater confidence and creativity for our nation, we must expect it from our Executive, demonstrate it in the Parliament and demand it from every individual and organisation that has an interest not just in the arts, but in the future of our country.
I begin by picking up two of Susan Deacon's points. On her comment about stimulating babies with culture, I have to say that my wife is very pleased with my attempts to stimulate our new baby. I talk to her politically each evening before she goes to sleep and, amazingly, she sleeps for nearly nine hours. However, I do not know what that says about her future party allegiances.
It would also be remiss of me not to talk about the excellent Eddi Reader. Last year, I missed the opportunity of listening to Eddi's performance in the Parliament, because I was otherwise detained declaring a republic on Calton hill. However, it is with great pleasure that I announce that, after performing for the Queen last year, Eddi will perform on 1 October outside the Parliament—this time for a republic. I think that she will be more at ease joining the Trash Can Sinatras and Dance Monkey Boy Dance on 1 October—which shows the breadth of cultural expression that will be on display.
That point is important. As Linda Fabiani pointed out, we must be careful in any political discussion about culture. After all, one person's culture is quite clearly another person's cringe—or, to put it more eloquently, one person's culture is someone else's crap. As a result, we have to be less prescriptive and more enabling in our provision of funds. Donald Gorrie mentioned the good practice in Glasgow City Council, which has improved its cultural support. However, we must also bear in mind that, if we localise arts funding too much, there can be pressure to be more prescriptive. For example, in the early 1990s, the local licensing committee refused to give "Reservoir Dogs" a general film release certificate because it was too violent. However, the very same month saw the release of "Under Siege", in which Steven Seagal managed to kill about 300 people. We must be careful to defend national funding because it should mean that there is less pressure on prescribing what is or is not art or what should or should not be allowed.
The question of finance is clearly at the heart of the full report. Most of the briefings that we have received from various organisations draw our attention to recommendation 117, which refers to the current £100 million "funding gap" that the Scottish Executive needs to address by setting a target of spending 1 per cent of its budget on cultural provision. If recommendation 117 is not to be taken on board, the minister should at least tell us the level of funding that we can expect for future arts provision.
I am worried by the Scottish Arts Council's comment that, if it receives standstill budgets, the funding for many theatre and touring groups such as 7:84 will disappear and such organisations could be killed off. Indeed, I believe that a document released under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 shows that some discussions involving the Scottish Arts Council have centred on the suggestion that the type of audience that 7:84 receives is not exactly what is being looked for. Well, that is dangerous. Just because 7:84 might attract an audience that is different from the audiences that other national theatre or touring groups attract, that does not mean that it deserves to have its funding threatened. I invite the minister to make it absolutely clear today that she would be very angry if groups with the long-established success of 7:84—which was founded in 1973—were to find their funding under serious threat because of standstill budgets or budgets with only a small increase.
I hope that some of the commission's recommendations are taken on board and, more important, that the spirit of the commission's report is taken on board. The commission makes the point that arts and culture are for everyone and that we can no longer accept the idea that culture is only for some people. We have to improve access to all forms of artistic expression.
That is where the Parliament must come in, not to be prescriptive or to say what is good or bad, but to provide the facilities and funding for the widest possible expression of artistic talent. We recognise that not everything will always be everyone's cup of tea, but there will be audiences for just about every form of art. I hope that the minister will address the key funding question when she sums up, because, without the increased funding, the debate is just all talk.
We have spent the past six years discussing a cultural strategy. Many people hoped that setting up the Cultural Commission would be a great leap forward, or even a cultural revolution. More were sceptical. The report is certainly great—if only sizewise, in comparison to the time that we have today to discuss this really important issue—and it poses many important questions and makes good suggestions. Despite the 500-plus pages, however, there are important issues that receive scant attention and areas the surfaces of which are barely scratched.
The distinction between cultural rights and entitlements is useful. Identifying what we should be able to do and what we should be able to expect to have provided for us is a worthy objective. However, it does not really address the inherited cultural inequalities or tell us how to ensure that rights and entitlements are available to and appropriate for all. For example, the concept of social inclusion has a name check in the report. There are few references to disability in the document, although there are half a dozen in annex L, which comprises 130 pages of references. There are also four other references, to architectural design, the financial burden of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, home deliveries from the Falkirk library—a good library, I have to say—and social security in Croatia. Beyond references to being able to get into buildings, I found next to nothing about how to ensure that artists, performers and the public have equal access to and entitlement to participate in the cultural life of our nation regardless of disability.
The report proposes a conference for young people about transport, which is a great idea, but why not a conference on disability and the arts? After all, young disabled people face multiple barriers. They are excluded from cultural events and the issues are not only about transport but about prejudice and lack of facilities. Young disabled people are told, "I'm sorry, there's no loos," or, "There's boxes in the loo for the disabled folk," or, "You can't come because you're a fire hazard." That inequality is not acceptable. Mainstreaming equality means that proper consideration should be given to those issues, not only by the Parliament and its Equal Opportunities Committee but also by those who consider our cultural policy.
Rights and entitlements must be wide ranging and robust enough to ensure that there is a fair distribution of cultural capital. Of course, whenever we discuss social and cultural capital, the issue of financial capital is seldom far away. Funding issues must be addressed, which means more money. It also means getting the right mechanisms for the allocation and distribution of funding. In doing so, we must avoid some of the errors of the past, and I do not think that we need another body with its own institutional agenda, impervious to the views of other stakeholders. We must democratise the arts, creating a mechanism that allows for a diversity of stakeholders to influence the development of the arts.
The broad and diverse swathe of those who are involved in traditional arts, popular and performing arts, libraries, galleries and the so-called high arts, trade unions, voluntary organisations and civic society must all have access to the decision-making process. Making culture an integral part of community planning would help only if planning was open and accessible to stakeholders in communities; that is not always the case.
With regard to traditional arts—a subject close to my heart—I am pleased that dance, music and storytelling are considered in various contexts and that there is a language recommendation that the Scottish Storytelling Centre should be resourced and developed to implement a national strategy for storytelling. I would like to have seen many more recommendations and am really disappointed that they are not there.
I know that broadcasting is reserved, but we have a duty to say what is good for Scottish culture. I would have liked the suggestion that there should be a digital radio station devoted to the music of contemporary Scotland to have been made as a recommendation. It would also have been good if the report had said that that should not be a substitute for more prominent use of such material by Radio Scotland.
I am not in favour of a wholesale adoption of the report's recommendations. However, like every other speaker this afternoon, I do not want it to be sidelined. We need to start work on this important issue and we need to move forward quickly; past standards have not given us any cause for hope about how quickly we can move. I am heartened to hear the minister say that she will come back to the Parliament to discuss how we implement the report. We are all responsible for ensuring that it does not die and for encouraging other people to debate and discuss what should be happening so that Scotland can have a culture it can be proud of. Like Linda Fabiani, I am not sure that cultural prescription is the right idea; it makes me squirm. Culture is a right and we should support it.
I open by saying to Donald Gorrie that "Tristan und Isolde" is the tantric sex of opera and I would rather have five hours of it than one minute.
To Christine May, I say that the idea that the report shows the Executive's commitment is nothing but sycophantic nonsense. The then Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, Frank McAveety, was clearly expected to make proposals because a Scottish Parliament election was on the horizon. The truth is that the minister did not have a scooby, so he commissioned the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council to take a year out to produce a report for the Executive.
The report would always disappoint. It could satisfy no one because there will always be disputes about what will be required. The minister's measured response was welcome and the three points that she brought to the fore were encouraging. I look forward to hearing what the Executive will decide in the end.
A debate in the Scottish Parliament about the state and the role of the Government can ask the question, "What can the state most usefully do for art?" or in a broader sense, "What can the state most usefully do for Scottish culture?" I agree with Allan Massie that the state or Government's role in education is probably its most fundamentally important role and it is the one to which we should give the most consideration. We need a literate nation. John Knox was probably the most important person in our cultural history. By setting up schools in every parish to ensure that we had a literate nation, he gave people access to culture. Literacy is not just about the English language; it is about all our tongues. Even people—dare I say it in this Parliament—such as Michael Forsyth, by investing in and expanding Gaelic-medium education, did far more for Scottish culture than any culture minister has done since.
The debate has not generally touched on funding; that is welcome because this Parliament has a habit of throwing money at problems.
Many members have considered the different aspects of Scotland's culture and that is important. One such aspect is access, which is crucial. However, access should not come at the price of cultural or artistic excellence. We want people to be inspired by the quality of our artists and performers.
As Cathy Peattie mentioned—quite bravely, for a Labour member—the past five to six years have, in many respects, been wasted. First, we had a cultural strategy group for an Executive cultural strategy that made no mention of artistic excellence or Scottish literature. Then we had drift, when it seemed that nothing would come of it all. Then we had a crisis in our national institutions such as Scottish Ballet and Scottish Opera. Then we had the First Minister's speech, which raised people's horizons by asking people to consider what our goals should be. Then we had a Cultural Commission, which has produced this report.
Scotland has a wealth of cultural richness in spite of, not because of, the actions of an Executive that has had more culture ministers over the past six years than the Royal Lyceum Theatre Company has had directors over the past 40. What the artistic world needs is some certainty. People now look to the minister to provide that certainty so that they can plan. People need some stability and reliability in funding, so that they know the risks before they make their ventures.
The Parliament itself could be creative by considering how we might hold our quangos, non-departmental public bodies, national cultural institutions and ministers accountable. We could consider the direct funding of various bodies and hold ministers to account if the funding that those national institutions received was inadequate. We could ensure that the regional, local and voluntary bodies were more adequately funded by the Scottish Arts Council. We could also provide for competition among the bodies. We have many trusts, such as the Dunard Fund and the Gannochy Trust, so why do we have only one Scottish Arts Council? Why does the SAC also control lottery funding?
To me, the idea of a strategy is the antithesis of culture. A cultural strategy should not be under the command of a quango or a minister. Culture is spontaneous, organic and reactive. Culture is not even consensual—we should be debating rather than agreeing. Consider Scottish art's most important and active impresario, Ricky Demarco. One never knows what he will say or do next and one certainly never knows whether one will agree with him. That is what culture is about. It is unpredictable. A cultural strategy that is predictable, whereby the state tells us what to do, is wrong. All that we require from the state are the foundations from which our culture can be nurtured and can grow.
There is good culture, and there is bad culture. I look forward to the minister providing a basis on which we can build good culture.
The Scottish arts have had so many successes since devolution—I do not recognise Brian Monteith's distortion of the past six years—that they are almost too many to mention. Of course we all want more.
That is why I believe that the starting point for debate for both the Parliament and the Cultural Commission is how to ensure that all Scots have opportunities to engage in cultural and artistic activities. There is no point in having new structures to govern the delivery of the arts, new schemes to promote them or new entitlements to enjoy them without providing people with more access to the arts. In my view, that access needs to be spread more evenly throughout society and the country. There is no reason why access should come at the expense of excellence.
Although the question to be asked of the Cultural Commission's proposals is how they will increase access to the arts, increasing access is not just about providing more opportunities for people to take part in the arts but about creating a cultural change in Scotland. Parts of Scottish society still view certain types of artistic endeavour as being not for them, but simply an indulgence for others in our community. Hence, it is no surprise that, when arts funding is being debated, some people argue that funding our national arts companies is not the best use of resources because they benefit only a small section of Scottish society. Those arguments can be challenged if we work harder to create better access for everyone to the whole spectrum of the arts.
I am interested in the commission's concept of cultural rights, but I am more interested in how we make those rights relevant. The commission has made some proposals that will help to inform how we go on to do that.
A report of this length is problematic when it comes to encouraging more people to be involved in this important debate. Like other members, I think that it places too much emphasis on structures—not just at national level, but at other levels. I would have liked to have seen an even greater focus on delivery. I do not intend to focus on structures, other than to agree with what others have said. Given the views that were expressed in the cultural conference, to which Chris Ballance referred, there is clearly no consensus in Scotland's artistic community in support of the report's preferred option. However, there is a consensus that, following the publication of the report, it is time for us to take action to address the issues with which it deals. That action will be informed by some constructive proposals in the report.
The report makes many recommendations, but in the time that is available to me I would like to mention just a couple. Today we have heard much about the success of the role of culture co-ordinators. I hope that the idea can reach beyond schools and more widely into communities, to encourage more people to be involved in cultural and artistic activities. I am pleased to hear that the minister will meet COSLA to discuss that. I hope that progress will be made in that area.
The report also calls for best-value reviews for national companies. A key standard by which we should measure the companies' success is that they are truly national. By that I do not mean just that they should perform throughout Scotland, rather than in Edinburgh and Glasgow, although that is a key issue, but also that they should be encouraged to engage in even more outreach work, building on the success of their existing education work, to which Linda Fabiani rightly referred. Some of those principles can also be applied to the national collections.
The report discusses another key issue in creating greater access to the arts—how we can encourage greater parity in local authority arts spending. Almost all speakers have mentioned that, and I agree with everything that has been said about it. The minister referred to it, and we are all aware that progress needs to be made on it. That challenge raises the general issue of investment. Some of the numbers in the report seemed to me to be rather arbitrary, but that does not mean that we should not consider carefully issues of central funding, as well as how we can encourage more private investment in and sponsorship of the arts—an issue to which Jamie Stone referred.
I concede the difficulties in setting up a culture fund in exactly the way in which the report recommends. Michael Matheson was right to point out some of those difficulties. However, some of the functions that were proposed for the fund are genuinely good ideas for helping arts organisations to access wider sources of funding, and hopefully they can be taken on board. They should certainly be incorporated in any action plan.
Action is a theme that runs throughout the report. It may not have provided us with the final blueprint for the future of the arts in Scotland, but it contains many suggestions that should inform such a blueprint. As the minister reflects on how to take forward proposals, she will undoubtedly be assisted by the work of the commission. I urge her again to put the general theme of access to the arts at the forefront of her thoughts as she considers the way forward. We have had the time for contemplation. Now is the time for actions that will ensure that we have a thriving artistic culture that all Scots can take part in, benefit from and enjoy.
I want to take a slightly different tack and to take one step back. I think that we are avoiding a question—what is the global vision that would inform our decisions about priorities? We spend a lot of time talking about priorities, but I see no agreement on the global vision. If we do not agree that vision, we will not be able to have a sensible discussion about the priorities.
Without the underpinning, debates about funding and structure get us nowhere. They just become demands for more funding for this, that and the other pet project. We have heard some of those demands today. I do not take anything away from that approach—we all have a list of things that we would like to see funded. However, it will not get us any further forward in respect of the Cultural Commission's report. I see something of the same problem in the report, for all its length. Consequently, it is all over the place, which means that there is a danger that our debate will also be all over the place.
Three elements should underpin any strategy. First, we should focus on nurturing, encouraging and developing all our unique, indigenous art forms. That is not about being narrow and parochial. Our indigenous art forms are unique; if we lose them the world loses them, because they are Scotland's gift to world culture. If they do not thrive here they will disappear.
Secondly, we should focus on investing in the creative process and ensuring that the climate is right for writers of words and music and for artists of all kinds to ensure that there is a constant supply of new books, paintings, songs and creative work in all the newly emerging art forms. The importance of investment in the creation of art cannot be emphasised strongly enough.
Thirdly, we should ensure that Scots, with all their diversity, have access to all that their own country can offer and access to the best of the rest. That means not only pibrochs but Indian ragas—those are other countries' gifts, which we deserve to be able to access.
At best we end up talking about the third of those elements and miss out the discussion of the first two. I do not disagree with the talk of rights and entitlements, but we are in danger of putting the cart before the horse if we do not first ensure that there is something of quality to have a right to. That cannot be delivered by legislation. I am therefore a little sceptical about how the Executive could legislate so that rights and entitlements mean anything.
All the wonderful delivery mechanisms in the world will be utterly pointless if there is nothing to deliver. It is only when we are clear about our strategic priorities that we can make funding and other decisions in a coherent manner.
Other countries all have to make the same decisions. For example, the vexed question of Scottish Opera comes around again and again. Whenever it does, everyone refers to Denmark and talks about however many opera companies it has. That is fair enough, but Ireland has no opera companies. Why is that? The difference between those two countries shows that in each one a national decision was made at some point about what could and could not be supported. In Ireland there is no national ballet or opera company but there is vibrant national theatre, which we are still waiting for in Scotland.
We all have views about the funding afforded to our existing national companies. The problem is that there are no strategic guidelines that would assist us in the decision-making process. The result is that huge sectors of the arts feel that they are underfunded in comparison to the national companies, but they do not understand why that is the case.
It would be churlish not to acknowledge in my speech all the good work that is currently taking place throughout Scotland in all sectors of the arts. The minister spoke about the role of central Government and was correct to do so with regard to the money that comes from central Government. Much of the work that is going on benefits from funding from the Scottish Arts Council and other work gets support from private sponsors. However, a key component in any cultural strategy must be the role of local government. We must recognise, with the caveat that local cultural initiatives are subject to the strategic imperatives that I have mentioned, the importance of local government in the sector. It is a provider of the bricks and mortar as well as what goes in the museums, galleries and libraries.
There is a very good example of the role of local government in Perthshire. On Friday afternoon I listened to a presentation of the Perth and Kinross cultural strategy. Local cultural strategies are important because we must recognise regional variations within Scotland and local initiatives allow a focus on that. For example, Shetland is always held up as an area that has a strong fiddling tradition and so it does. However, Perthshire also has a strong fiddling tradition that stretches from the legendary Neil Gow in the 18th century right through to Dougie MacLean, who was described by Michael Marra as Neil Gow's apprentice. I hope that Perthshire can capitalise on that tradition in the future. Perhaps we can capitalise on it in the wonderful new Perth concert hall, which has only just opened although its genesis was in the mid 1990s. The concert hall is an example of the ambition of much-derided local government. It was paid for by Perth and Kinross Council, the Gannochy Trust and Norwich Union. It is also evidence of SNP ambition because it was an SNP administration in the council that started it.
I plead for a clear vision on the fundamentals. We can then debate the delivery mechanisms and the role of Government. If we do not reach agreement about the first, the arguments about the second—the funding decisions and the role of Government—will never go away.
The English poet Matthew Arnold described culture as
"a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world".
Thomas Carlyle said:
"Culture is the process by which a person becomes all that they were created capable of being."
Those slightly grandiose statements show a view of culture in which it is seen as the pursuit of human perfection. However, in preparing for today's debate, I also came across the George Bernard Shaw quotation:
"What we call education and culture is for the most part nothing but the substitution of reading for experience, of literature for life, of the obsolete fictitious for the contemporary real."
Although George Bernard Shaw may have overstated his point, what I like about the quotation is that it starts to open up the notion of culture and the creation of our culture as participatory—something that is done by us rather than to us.
Culture is not just about reading books, visiting galleries, watching movies or listening to music, valuable and enjoyable as they are; culture must also be about people participating in the arts at all stages in their lives by creating pictures, making music and writing poems and stories. That is not to take an anti-elitist approach—inevitably, some people will be better at each of the disciplines than others will be—but to take an anti-exclusive one.
The Cultural Commission report sets out four cultural rights, one of which is
"The right to participate in designing and implementing cultural policy".
One of the key ways to engage with people in the development of cultural policy at the local level is through community planning, which is a subject that a number of speakers have touched on. Community planning is still a rather nebulous concept that is difficult to define. However, the basic concept of improved partnership working that is allied to improved community participation is one that is sound in principle. If it works well, community planning should ensure strong grassroots participation in the development of local cultural strategies and offer the possibility of taking a truly cross-cutting approach to the development of arts and culture at the local level.
Let us imagine a local cultural strategy that was the preserve not of a council's community services department, but had been developed by a partnership of all the key service providers including education, leisure, social work, planning, the local voluntary sector and health board and even the local police.
Let us imagine a local cultural strategy that recognises the benefits of engaging young people in the arts as a way of challenging antisocial behaviour and promoting greater intergenerational understanding. As members who attended my recent members' business debate will know, that is not a flight of fancy. The youth workers and the young people of Airdrie have proven that that approach can work. It is important to ensure that young people have access to artistic and cultural experiences.
I recently learned about a number of drama workshops that the Scottish Youth Theatre is running for young people at Willowbank School in Coatbridge—a school that provides support for school refusers. The aim of the workshops is to improve social and communication skills and they have been judged so successful that North Lanarkshire Council has asked the SYT to continue the classes.
The SYT is an excellent example of a national voluntary arts organisation that has a good reputation for working with community-based groups. Indeed, its national roadshow will see over 100 free drama workshops being held across Scotland for young people aged between 12 and 21.
Some concern has been expressed about the report's lack of reference to the informal learning and development that takes place outside the school setting. I share those concerns. The work that is done by the staff and volunteers at the just youth project and the @home centre in Airdrie clearly demonstrate that much valuable work can and is being done outside the school environment. It is important that policies and resources recognise and support that.
Whether the work is done through local authority community learning and development departments or voluntary groups, community-based approaches to working with young people have a vital part to play. That must be recognised in all local cultural strategies.
The Cultural Commission's report, like all good art, has provoked much debate. I hope that the Executive will now focus on the actions that are needed to build on and strengthen Scotland's already proud cultural heritage.
I listened to the debate with great interest. I am going to do something quite different. Normally, it would be my job to refer to the speeches that have been made, but themes have developed throughout all the contributions, so I will not be specific. I will also go slightly off message. Donald Gorrie is the culture spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, but I would like to share with the chamber my own thoughts.
I have a fundamental, deep-seated belief in myself—[Laughter.] I concede that that is open to misinterpretation by the chamber. Within myself I have a deep-seated belief that culture is about the happiness of the human being, and it is linked to education. What is the sum total of culture? All the works of Beethoven, all the operas by Wagner and all the pictures that have ever been painted are mere baubles, and in 1,000 years' time will be dust. However, when they are produced and for the generations that follow they equal human pleasure and can lead to greater knowledge and greater education. That is the number 1 premise.
From that, I firmly believe that each human being on this planet has a cardinal right to develop their cultural level to their maximum ability. It may be music, it may be writing, it may be doing things with their hands or whatever, but it is part and parcel of the human condition. If we take that as the fundamental rule, a lot of things follow. In the previous chamber and in this one, my friend Brian Monteith and I have argued the toss about culture and the merits of a silver band versus a late Beethoven quartet, but each to their own. We agree that that is precisely how we should think about these matters.
The point has been made that it is about money, and of course it is, but let us think about this: what right does any of us have to be arty-farty and to dictate to people what is good for them because we think that we know about high art and they do not? That goes back to my point about each human being having the right to develop their idea of culture to their maximum potential. We could even go along the lines of discussing—as Linda Fabiani and I know—the merits or otherwise of having Jack Vettriano's work in this place or in the galleries of Scotland or elsewhere. The fact remains that Jack Vettriano's work is hugely liked by the Scottish people, and who are we to gainsay that? We have to think carefully about what is good taste and what is bad taste. What right does any of us have to say to our neighbours, "You're wrong about culture"?
I have a lady in my constituency who can knit anything. She can knit a toaster. She can knit a model steam engine.
Is it you?
No, it is not me, I promise. That is her idea of culture, and it has a role. Who are we to denigrate that?
I agree with many members that local authorities have a crucial role. Yes, provision is patchy—no names no pack drill, but some local authorities do an awful lot better than others. As we know, the law does not state in black and white, "Thou shalt deliver culture." Some local authorities do well and others do not. At some future date we may have to revisit the legislation. We must not be prescriptive to local authorities, but there are issues of community involvement and finding out what the different parts of Scotland like to do best.
As I have said in the chamber before, Scotland is like a diamond. Each facet of the diamond is different and reflects the light differently, so culture in the Highlands might be different from culture in Paisley or the Borders, but that is the beauty of the beast that is Scotland. Variety is the spice of life.
We have seen many well-meaning papers and taken part in many well-meaning discussions. One of the best things that has happened to the arts in Scotland—I do not like the word "culture"—is the fact that Richard Holloway has taken up the post of chairman of the Scottish Arts Council. He seriously challenges us all and brings a degree of commitment and questioning to the job that will only do us good.
I make a plea for a period of stability. I have read all the information that has come before me about today's debate, which shows that change for change's sake, or just moving the deckchairs to make another organisation, would not be the best way. We have had a lot of changes and argy-bargy in the past. We need to settle down, put our money where our mouth is and try to help and support the arts.
My good friend Donald Gorrie referred to the great opera "Tristan und Isolde"—I doubt whether that could be condensed into "The Minute Waltz" as he suggested and, in any case, the debate is more like the ring cycle than "Tristan und Isolde", but the point is that, in supporting the arts, we need to marry great or fine art with the local art that matters to people who do small things in small communities. That local art might just involve a small drama production, but it makes a difference to people's lives, which takes me back to where I began. Culture is about each human being lighting up their short space of life—just the strike of a match in eternal darkness—with a bit of fun and art, which will give them, their children and their grandchildren pleasure in life and happy memories for the future.
I must declare my interests: I am a member of the board of the Byre Theatre of St Andrews and a shareholder of the Scottish Media Group.
There is much that is good in the Cultural Commission's report, although cynics might say that, given that it sprawls over 500 pages and makes no fewer than 131 recommendations, there is scope to get a few things right. However, my major worry, which I share with Michael Matheson and others, is that, far from directing more money to the arts and cutting down unnecessary bureaucracy, the convoluted two-quango structure that the commission advocates would increase bureaucracy.
In the spat between the commission, represented by James Boyle in the red corner, and COSLA, represented by Bridget McConnell in the deeper red corner, we are not convinced that allowing local councils to dole out still further arts funding would cut bureaucracy or help to promote culture. I accept the view that many members have expressed that local authorities do fine work in supporting the arts, but I worry about an expansion of that role. The arts excel when they are free of political interference, which applies to local and national Administrations. That is why we are in favour of retaining the Scottish Arts Council, albeit in a far less overlapping role. The council has demonstrated that, given proper funding, it can be a distinctive arbiter of culture in Scotland.
Like Jamie Stone, rather than deal with specific speeches in my summing up, in the few minutes that I have remaining I will concentrate on three key aspects of the report. I will mention education and support for local theatres and, as a former broadcaster, I will perhaps say a word on Scottish broadcasting, to which, understandably, the minister did not have time to refer.
Art across the board cannot flourish unless people are educated to receive it. Brian Monteith was right to quote Allan Massie, who wrote in an article for the Policy Institute:
"Unless we accept that it is in the schools and universities that the tastes of future readers, audiences, viewers and frequenters of galleries are formed, and their ability to create and appreciate the creations of others is extended and deepened, artists will find no adequate public for their work."
It seems to me that a generation of young people who grow up with access to increased cultural activities will be a generation with a greater chance of self-fulfilment and the future bedrock of a healthy arts sector in Scotland.
I make no apology for identifying the Byre Theatre as a magnificent local facility—it was created largely by lottery funding, but it is woefully unable to fulfil its potential because of an on-going shortage of revenue funding. The commission specifically picks out the Byre in talking about disparity in funding. The report states:
"Smaller theatres such as the Byre received around £200,000 … less"
per annum than their English equivalents. It is a nonsense that theatres such as the Byre and venues such as the Crawford arts centre in St Andrews should have to be kept afloat by overworked, talented and underpaid staff, backed up by the efforts of volunteers who are rapidly approaching burnout. I invite the minister to come and look at the good work that is being done in such venues. The long-term health of theatre in Scotland depends on appropriate funding of regional producing theatres, voluntary cultural sector centres and touring companies such as 7:84.
On broadcasting, my personal view is that the current review of the role of the BBC is long overdue. As a state-funded organisation, it could do much to raise the level of culture in Scotland. Now that a plethora of commercial channels are available, there is no need for the BBC to compete to satisfy the lowest common denominator. Whatever happened to the organisation's Reithian ethos of educating and elevating public taste? The most casual look at a BBC schedule for peak time on Saturday night would have Lord Reith turning in his grave.
The commission accurately identifies that the structure of the Scottish television industry—the BBC and ITV—has not changed for 50 years. It notes correctly that neither TV nor radio in Scotland is funded at levels that allow commissioning of the more expensive genres. That is why the overall tone and configuration of both the BBC and ITV are so firmly set in London; it is also why Scottish-produced content on all national networks is so limited and feeble.
The commission recommends that Scottish ministers should consider how a Scottish channel could be funded and set up. I agree, but it is my personal view that we should go further. If devolution is a work in progress, as all parties in the Parliament appear to believe, is it not now time to review the decision that control of public broadcasting should be left to Westminster?
I look forward to collaborating with the minister on the important exercise of restructuring the arts in Scotland and I hope that she will be able to mention the future of broadcasting in her summing up.
I congratulate Ted Brocklebank on the final part of his speech, which was excellent. He is welcome to cross the floor at any time.
There is a broad consensus among members that many aspects of the Cultural Commission's report are worth while and that many of its recommendations are both relevant and important. However, I think that Roseanna Cunningham put her finger on the button when she said that the problem with the report is that it does not lay out a vision of where we want Scottish culture to go in the years ahead. The absence of an underlying view of what the Parliament and the Executive should seek to achieve in the future makes it difficult to translate many of the recommendations into an overall cultural policy that allows us to decide priorities, where the money should go, where we need legislation and all the rest of it. The biggest job for first the minister, and then the Enterprise and Culture Committee and the Parliament, will be to develop the big picture which, with all due respect, I think the commission utterly failed to do.
Some of the recommendations are not important, relevant or worth supporting. I will pick out what I thought was one of the daftest recommendations ever: that another minister, a deputy minister for tourism, culture and sport, should be appointed.
I assure Mr Neil that I have it on good authority that there is no intention of appointing a deputy minister.
That is highly encouraging because, when I look through the list of departments that have a deputy minister, I find that nearly every one of them is failing utterly to reach its targets. I can only hope that, as the sole power in the land in her department, Ms Ferguson will achieve her targets.
The commission laid a great deal of emphasis on structures and how we should deliver but, to my mind, that should come at the tail-end of the debate rather than at its start. As Roseanna Cunningham said, we need to decide what we want to deliver before we can decide how best to deliver it.
I draw members' attention to the excellent evidence that my friend and colleague Mr Matheson submitted on behalf of the Scottish National Party, which was the only party to submit evidence to the commission. Rather than recommending the creation of another two quangos, with all the bureaucracy and costs that would be attached to that, he suggested an idea that is similar to that put forward by Donald Gorrie, which would involve the setting up of a Scottish academy with advisory status. The academy would advise the minister, while the Education Department would do the administration. We do not need a bunch of bureaucrats in the department, a bunch of bureaucrats in the SAC and a bunch of bureaucrats in a funding agency. We want to have just the one set of bureaucrats so we can save a lot of money on the other two sets.
The beauty of the idea of the Scottish academy—and I hope that the minister will take it seriously, despite the fact that it came from the SNP—is that it can be composed of people from the grass roots and from every section of arts and culture in Scotland. It would not be a body appointed by ministers on the recommendation of the civil service; it would consist of people who were elected by their peers in various sectors of the arts, who would come together regularly to help to develop an on-going strategy and advise the minister on where the priorities should lie, where the money should be spent and where the investment is required. That way, we would involve people and encourage the artists to participate in the decision-making process rather than having the decisions handed down to them in some dirigiste fashion, reminiscent of what happened in the days of the Kremlin.
He will find this utterly surprising—and this is certainly a rare occasion—but I agree with much of what Brian Monteith said. Many of the points that he made about the role of the state and the public sector were correct. The state should not decide what is good and what is bad, culturally speaking. We want to divorce as much of the decision making as possible from Government and Parliament and have the decisions made in a much more democratic and participative way that involves those who deliver our culture.
The primary role of the public sector is not to deliver cultural services—although in some areas, such as libraries, that will probably always have to be the case—but, particularly with regard to the creative arts, to enable, to provide support to and to assist in the development of the creative people who are the deliverers of art and culture. Another good recommendation—which is, like most of the good recommendations, buried in the report—is the idea of having a national awards scheme whereby we give many more scholarships. We heard from Chris Ballance about the financial difficulties that writers have. I do not believe that it is our job to provide our writers with a guaranteed income for ever and a day, no matter how good they are. However, we can give them much more pump priming than we do just now. Perhaps there could be a scholarship of up to three years. Some of those scholarships should be international scholarships to help to build the sort of international links that Roseanna Cunningham talked about and to develop our connections with other cultures worldwide. We need to provide the funding at the grass-roots level that will enable us to sow the seeds of creativity; we should not think of ourselves as the people who have to create or run an organisation or come up with guidelines for cultural organisations. If we are going to encourage the cultural flowering of Scotland, we have to sow those seeds at a local level and at a national level.
It is right that we should ask our local authorities to do much more than some of them are doing. However, we cannot do that or give effective cultural rights to people if we do not ensure that the resources are there for them to exercise those rights. Indeed, it is not legislation that is required but resources. The philosophy that is required is an enabling one that will allow us to sow the seeds that will encourage the flowering of our nation. If we do that, we will become a culturally advanced nation, which will benefit everyone.
I am grateful to colleagues for their lively and enthusiastic contributions to the debate. The speeches have been wide ranging. If the Cultural Commission has done nothing else, one of the important things that has come about is that we have had a proper discussion of this important subject.
Christine May, Linda Fabiani, Roseanna Cunningham and Michael Matheson referred to rights and entitlements. I agree with the consensus around that issue. I do not think that legislation is necessarily the way in which to enshrine that kind of opportunity for the people of Scotland. With rights come responsibilities and duties, and against whom would someone make their claim if their right could not be fulfilled for whatever reason? We can work towards having rights and entitlements, but we do not necessarily need legislation. I reassure Cathy Peattie, in particular, that equality of access for people with disability will be a serious consideration when we consider rights and entitlements in the future.
Michael Matheson also mentioned cultural planning, as did other members including Linda Fabiani and Roseanna Cunningham. That is an area in which we need to take work forward quickly. The community planning framework is beginning to come in in our communities, and we need to keep up with that. I said that in my speech, and I hope that people understand the importance that I attach to it.
On education, I hope that Michael Matheson understands that the work that we are doing on the highland year of culture and Burns shows that we are serious about promoting traditional Scottish culture and art forms, ensuring that they are seen not just in Scotland, but on the world stage.
Several members—Jamie McGrigor and Chris Ballance, in particular—mentioned the importance of tourism. I do not have any problem with Chris Ballance on that issue. To Jamie McGrigor, I say that I have been saying for more than a year that culture and tourism—and, indeed, sport—are inextricably linked, and I am delighted that we now have a convert on the Tory benches. Jamie McGrigor also talked about a decline in funding for the Scottish Arts Council, choosing to focus on lottery funding. However, since devolution, the amount of Government core funding for the Scottish Arts Council has doubled. Our commitment to making the Scottish Arts Council and the work that it does a viable operation cannot be questioned as Jamie McGrigor was questioning it.
Donald Gorrie mentioned the excellent exhibition that I opened in Kirkcudbright. Glasgow's Kelvingrove art gallery allowed some of its Impressionist paintings to go there and the exhibition was a huge success. It gave people in Kirkcudbright and people coming into the area the opportunity to see paintings that they would perhaps not get to see unless they were able to travel to Glasgow. That will continue. Kirkcudbright is in conversation with the National Galleries of Scotland about doing something similar in the future, and I wish that initiative all the success that it deserves. Richard Baker also mentioned the importance of touring, and I said in my opening speech that I see companies and collections that call themselves national as having to meet a criterion to encourage them to go down that road.
Linda Fabiani had a difficulty with the concept of culture. If we are honest, most of us can understand that. However, I ask her to cast her mind back to the excellent Scottish Ballet performances that she and I attended in the summer. At Motiv8, young boys from the age of five and some more mature ladies were participating in dance under the aegis of Scottish Ballet, which I think says a lot about what culture is. For small children, it can mean one thing; for older people, it perhaps means something else. However, that does not mean that they cannot work together and that it cannot be provided for in that way.
Susan Deacon made a valid point about embedding culture in our lives. I point to one example of that. In Dundee, brave decisions about investing in the arts and culture were taken 10 or 15 years ago, and we are now seeing that investment paying off, with people wanting to live and invest there. That is what we need to see throughout our country.
I was struck by Susan Deacon's comments about very small children learning about culture and enjoying the arts for their own sake. At lunch time I was at an event at the National Galleries of Scotland, where nursery children were being rewarded for the artwork that they had contributed.
I was interested in Tommy Sheridan's remarks. It is to Mr Sheridan's advantage that his storytelling does not have the same effect in the chamber as it does at home. Perhaps I can better his "Reservoir Dogs" story about the problems of licensing and being prescriptive about culture: I remember travelling to Edinburgh to see "The Life of Brian" because it was not available to those who lived in Glasgow.
That means that I am younger than the minister.
Well, we did not discuss chivalry, I suppose.
I agree with Tommy Sheridan that culture must not be prescriptive. We all have our own view on it, and we must all have the opportunity to develop our ideas.
I had the novel experience this afternoon of being described as "encouraging" by a Tory. I thank Brian Monteith sincerely for that. However, I assure him that culture and the arts matter dearly to me, and they are not just of great importance to me; they are of importance across the front bench. However, more important, they matter intrinsically to the people of Scotland. That is why we are so passionate about taking forward this debate.
Roseanna Cunningham spoke interestingly about a global vision, and she is right about that. That is perhaps where we could have hoped for a bit more encouragement from the Cultural Commission. However, there are many good things in its report, and we will continue to see the benefits of it as time goes on.
Like Roseanna Cunningham, I attended the opening concert at the Perth Concert Hall on Friday night. Visiting it will be a wonderful cultural experience for the people of Perth because of its wonderful architecture and design, but its programme shows that the venue will provide an eclectic mix of opportunities not just on the opening weekend but right through. I congratulate Perth and Kinross Council, under whichever guise, on developing that enterprise.
Before the minister concludes her speech, I wonder whether she would address the Cultural Commission's central recommendation that expenditure on culture should rise to 1 per cent of the Executive's budget.
I said in my opening remarks that we would have to cost whatever we plan to put in place, so we cannot give such commitments ahead of time. I question some of the arithmetic in the commission's report. I also point out to Mr Ballance that the cash available to cultural bodies in Scotland has risen from £120 million to £180 million from 2000. That does not include the money being spent by local authorities.
The Executive and I will reflect on colleagues' comments when finalising our response to the Cultural Commission's report. As I said, I do not intend that colleagues will have to wait beyond the end of the year to hear it.
I conclude by restating the Executive's commitment to the cultural sector. Culture matters, art matters, heritage matters, and architecture and design matter, too. We are investing in them for their own intrinsic worth and because they affect so many aspects of our lives. Most of all, we are investing in them because we are a modern, forward-thinking, vibrant country at ease with its place in the world. All my colleagues in the Cabinet recognise that, and they are looking at ways in which cultural activities can benefit their own objectives.
The First Minister said in his groundbreaking St Andrew's day speech on culture that the Executive was committed to
"providing and valuing creative expression and opportunity for all."
We want the best for our people, and we will deliver it.