Plenary, 27 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 27, 2000

Official Report 388KB pdf

---

The Creative Economy

We move now to our main debate this afternoon, which is on the creative economy. I call Nicol Stephen to move motion S1M-1213.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to open this debate. Since the Parliament was established, it has, on many occasions, debated issues of importance to Scotland's economy. Today's debate focuses on an aspect of our economy that has traditionally attracted less attention than it deserves—perhaps because to regard it as a sector runs counter to traditional economic views, and perhaps because it often defies conventional economic thinking. It has sometimes been neglected; this debate should go some way towards correcting that error.

The creative economy is of huge and growing significance to Scotland's competitive future in the 21st century. Scotland's creative industries are estimated by Scottish Enterprise to turn over £5 billion per year, which is around 4 per cent of the total Scottish economy. The sector employs 100,000 of Scotland's brightest, sparkiest and most talented people. The growth potential and export potential are huge. Scottish Enterprise's target is for 15 per cent of all Scottish exports to come from this sector alone within the next five years. Another thing that marks the sector out is that, at present, it is made up mainly of small companies, of which there are many—one estimate suggests that one in eight companies in Scotland is engaged in the creative industries.

When we mention the potential of those industries, we must remember what that potential means. We must remember that Jobs and Wozniak started Apple computers from a garage. Its design value still marks Apple out as a leader among the creative industries. Sony started with one man's ambitions in the electronics industry, producing radios in the post-war period. Sony now owns film studios and broadcasting companies, and produces leading-edge creative products such as the Walkman, the widescreen television and the Walkphone. Initially, Disney, arguably the most creative of them all, was one man's dream—now it is a global empire.

What are we talking about when we refer to the creative industries? The sector is broad and diverse and fails to fit the conventional classification of an economic sector. The sector is changing rapidly. The creative industries include: advertising, architecture, crafts, design, fashion, film, computer games—which I am told should now be called interactive leisure software—music, the performing arts, publishing, software, television and radio, which I can now listen to on the internet. The industries touch all sectors.

Design is not just adverts and brochures—not even glossy publications from the Scottish Executive or Scottish Enterprise—but encompasses industrial and product design. The Glasgow collection comprises more than 53 industrial and consumer products that have been developed in Scotland, 20 of which are in full production. Design includes web design; in the coming months and years, design will be central to the success of every ambitious company that wants to expand its markets worldwide. That is why the roles of the Design Council and the millennium products initiative are so important—several of the millennium products come from Scotland.

Given what the minister has said about the sector and Scottish Enterprise's target of increasing the sector's share of exports by 15 per cent, which sectors—in Scottish Enterprise's plans—are expected to see their share of exports fall as a result?

When there is growth in one area there is a fall in another. I do not know the answer to that question. I want to see growth in the creative industries sector, just as I want to see the overall cake increase in size. If the cake grows and there are more exports, every sector will gain in volume and profitability.

Seventy-one per cent of export businesses believe that design and innovation play a significant role in their success. A hundred per cent of companies that have a corporate identity—that is every company, because they all have corporate identities, whether they believe it or not—have design values that shape our view of their organisations. This is not an issue just for companies such as British Airways, Virgin, Shell, the Body Shop or BP-Amoco—now BP with a sunflower.

What is exciting about the potential of the creative industries is that now, more than ever, they will help to create and shape our futures. This is no longer just about creating a new product or shaping the building in which we live or work—although there is still huge interest in the work of architects, the structures that they produce and the buildings that rise from holes in the ground. The development of digital technology and the arrival of the global knowledge economy present huge, new opportunities for most of the creative industries. The projections of growth in those areas that have a digital base are massive—about 20 per cent per annum.

Technological development means that previously separate media and technologies are now converging. The same images and sequences can be used and interpreted in different media so that the distinctions between video, film, television, telephone and internet are being blurred. The first signs are already to be seen: computer games make use of digital animation similar to the techniques used in "Toy Story", "Walking with Dinosaurs" or the latest Schwarzenegger film.

Will the minister give way?

Yes. However, before I do so, I congratulate Kenny MacAskill on his new appointment.

I thank the minister for his congratulations.

The minister referred to glossy documents. Page 7 of the Scottish Enterprise document on the creative economy refers to a dynamic business environment, which will be

"achieved by the creation of links within the sector . . . Incubation facilities for the development of new ideas and the transfer of ideas across the sector".

What are they, where will they be located, when will we get them and how much will it cost?

Those are good questions and I shall go into specifics as I progress with my speech. Scottish Enterprise's proposals are flexible and I want every part of Scotland to benefit from the moneys that are being set aside to develop the industry. As Kenny MacAskill knows, there are opportunities and successful companies that want to develop in every part of Scotland.

The minister said that the advantages of this brave new world would extend to all of Scotland, but he must know that that will be greatly dependent on the availability of information and communications technologies infrastructure. Is not rural Scotland beginning to fall behind in some of that new infrastructure—not just asymmetric digital subscriber lines, but even integrated services digital network lines?

I am conscious of that concern. I think that it is a real one and I have already told Parliament that we must consider ways of combining public and private sector resources and funds to ensure that we spread the new technologies to all parts of Scotland.

The true potential of those technologies, and of the new media that they are giving rise to, is understood only in a limited way at present. However, it is certain that the industry is hungry for development, content, stories and ideas of all sorts. It is also hungry for skills, which are currently in short supply. For us to make the most of the opportunities, we will depend on innovative and creative talent being nurtured here in Scotland within a dynamic business environment. That does not mean a Government minister setting out examples of what is to be achieved. The very nature of the industry is that it is creative, innovative and sometimes spontaneous. Those are the conditions that the Executive is committed to creating.

Will the minister tell us what plans he is making to help creative industries to arise spontaneously?

I shall come to that shortly, but I would like to develop my argument a little further and mention some of the companies that are currently involved. I shall refer specifically to Pacific Quay in Glasgow and mention other developments as well.

The potential clearly exists and a lot of work is being done. The Creative Scotland website is mentioned in the—on this occasion—non-glossy document and I encourage all members to visit it.

Scotland already has a significant presence in the creative industries—not only in new, leading-edge technology, but in fashion, crafts and design. Names such as Ortak and Jean Muir are as well known in London and New York as they are at home. We have established and are developing film and broadcasting industries. Companies such as Ideal World and Wark Clements are ready to exploit the arrival of digital television and export their skills throughout the UK and further afield.

More recently, Scottish computer games companies have established an important niche. That is an area in which Scotland punches significantly above its weight. Companies such as VIS entertainment and Red Lemon Studios are already significant players. VIS has grown rapidly over the past four or five years from a company with only a handful of employees to one that now employs 100 people. It has developed an international reputation and profile, with many leading titles, such as Carmaggedon and Earthworm Jim. Red Lemon Studios expects to double its present 35 employees in the next year and has already had major hits with Braveheart and Aironauts.

Other companies such as Black ID, Digital Animations and Digital Bridges are also building strong reputations for high-quality and innovative work. Scotland's ability to build on the achievements of those companies will be assisted by the recently announced Scottish Enterprise strategy, which will invest up to £25 million to develop the sector. There will be support for projects to develop the infrastructure on which the industries depend, to give access to new international opportunities and to develop skills and new business and research alliances in the sector.

A number of significant developments are planned. The creation of a digital media campus at Pacific Quay in Glasgow will bring together in close proximity a number of leading companies in the field, allowing them to share facilities and to network and feed off one another. There are also important plans, as part of that development, for a film studio, and Scottish Screen has just submitted a business plan to the Scottish Executive. I want a film studio in Scotland, and the Executive and Scottish Enterprise will be assessing the proposal and holding further discussions over the coming weeks.

Will the minister tell the chamber whether the business plan is for a film studio that will in any way be run by Scottish Screen, or is it merely the specification of what kind of film studio is required?

The details are in the business plan, but we intend to look at it further and develop it. I think that we all want a good-quality film studio in Scotland, but we need to look at the best way of achieving that.

A creative industries campus on Tayside will be developed—building on the existing interactive Tayside partnership—which will aim to establish a natural hub for the computer games and electronic entertainment industry. Another important development that is already under way is the school of music and recording technology in Ayrshire.

Two other strands of the strategy are worth considering in a little detail. We need to do more internationally. There will therefore be an international marketing strategy, led by Scottish Trade International, to ensure that we exploit to the full overseas exhibitions and other opportunities. Centres in London and New York will be developed, as those cities remain the main commissioning and business centres in the industry. Complementing that will be opportunities for professionals to have international exchanges to enhance skills and create new alliances.

The development and exploitation of new technologies depend on high-quality research and development. The proposed development on Tayside reflects the important contribution of the University of Abertay to the design of interactive technologies. Three Scottish universities—Edinburgh, St Andrews and Glasgow—have five-star ratings for software research. Other universities and colleges are also engaged in work that has significant commercial potential. A central part of the strategy will be to support the commercialisation of research ideas.

I could go wider. New initiatives such as Project Alba and Dolly the sheep could claim to be part of the creative industries. I would not challenge that. Science is creative and the very best science is exciting science. Science creates the products of tomorrow. We need to get more people into science and teach them the importance of the softer skills that can help to bring science to life, such as product design and marketing and the use of creativity and innovation. Our science centres, such as the Big Idea and the new Glasgow science centre, are important.

Scotland's creative industries are a broad category and the strategy is broad and ambitious. It aims to increase the sector by 10 per cent each year over the next five years and to raise Scottish exports dramatically. It aims to create major new centres of excellence in Glasgow and Dundee. Most important, it gives recognition to a sector that has been neglected for too long.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the increasing contribution of the creative industries to the Scottish economy and the potential for further growth in this sector; notes the Executive's wish to ensure that the creative and business skills on which these industries depend are fully and properly nurtured in Scotland's people; welcomes Scottish Enterprise's £25 million development strategy to support this sector of the economy and promote its continuing expansion; and therefore endorses the determination of the Executive to ensure the conditions in which Scotland's creative industries will continue to flourish in rapidly growing world markets.

We welcome the initiative and accept that it offers an exciting opportunity for Scotland, with a very particular significance for the creative aspect of the Scottish economy. The minister has alluded to the figures involved—the 100,000 employed in the creative industries, a turnover of £5 billion per annum and 4 per cent of Scottish gross domestic product. Those are certainly very important dimensions to take into account. That, coupled with the anticipated growth rates, would lead us all to agree that this is a huge opportunity for Scotland.

My slight quandary is on definition, which I think must be addressed. The Scottish Executive's definition of creative industries includes

"Design, games, film, new media, publishing, advertising, radio and television, music and architecture".

Scottish Enterprise extends that to the arts and cultural industries and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to the traditional arts and music sectors.

For someone who finds the high-tech, multimedia age abrasively challenging and at times downright frightening and who herself may never actually get funky or become a net head, I am immensely admiring of those who embrace such facilities, which have undoubted relevance to the expansion of the creative industries. I hope that something equally important will not be overlooked in this thrusting quest.

I return to the definition of the creative industries, at least as I have been best able to identify it. We have a huge and unexploited reserve of culture, arts, literature, music, tradition and history in Scotland. That reserve is unique to our country. If I may, I will follow in the vein that was set by Father George Thompson this afternoon. I will quote from the preface to a cookery book, which states:

"The object of this book is not to provide a complete compendium of Scottish Cookery, ancient or modern . . . but rather to preserve the recipes of our old national dishes, many of which, in this age of standardisation, are in danger of falling into an undeserved oblivion."

The same preface goes on to say that

"the pageant of Scottish History is shadowed in the kitchen."

I think that there will be all-party agreement among the women in the chamber that there is a lot of sense in that.

Was that preface written last week or last year? No—it was written in 1929 by F Marion McNeill, who was a legendary figure in Scots cuisine long before Gary Rhodes and Gordon Ramsay had ever been heard of and certainly long before Delia Smith was eating lumps out of Anthony Worrall Thomson.

The book is part of our heritage—its content is certainly creative. The minister might care to brighten his day with some parlies or auld man's milk, recipes for both of which are included in the book. If he is fearful of trying them, parlies were a kind of gingerbread that was eaten by members of the Scottish Parliament. Auld man's milk sounds a little more hopeful—it is made from cream, rum, whisky, brandy, eggs, nutmeg and lemon zest.

My point is that the creative industries have a huge opportunity to re-explore, re-present and bring to a worldwide audience much of our history and culture, which is, as I said, unique to Scotland. We must be careful that in our thrusting quest for the new—which is necessary and desirable—we are ever mindful of what already exists. We must ensure that we use all our facilities and opportunities to advertise, re-present and repromote Scotland's rich creative reserves.

I congratulate Annabel Goldie on her noble aims, but my experience in the debate makes me feel as if I have slipped into a parallel universe in the past 20 minutes. Miss Goldie mentions in the amendment in her name that it would be good to see taxes kept as low as possible to encourage the creative industries. In the interests of the debate, does she agree with Brian Monteith that it would be a good idea to give Parliament the power to keep taxes as low as possible, rather than that power being confined to Westminster?

Mr Wilson makes that point with such tedious repetitiveness that I hesitate to waste time on responding to it. As I have said, Mr Monteith expressed his personal view—which is certainly not Conservative party policy. On the contrary, Conservative party policy is to introduce no new or higher taxes. Mr Wilson will not find many businessmen who will disagree with that.

On the Executive's initiative, I will emphasise two more points. There are some very bold plans in the document and some admirable ambitions, but it is vital that we track and measure the progress of the initiative.

I have read the document. Will Annabel Goldie point out to me a bold plan? I could not find one, but she might have been able to find one among all the graphics.

Perhaps I am a little less grudging than Mr Russell. We are talking about the ambition of trying to reach out to a worldwide market. We are given to understand that the potential for such expansion exists. The document contains a strategy, but it is not for me to defend the Executive's initiative—the Executive must do that.

My point is specific. We are talking about significant sums of public money. The intention is to increase the sector by 30 per cent in the next five years and raise exports from the sector to about 50 per cent of total Scottish exports. That is fine as an end objective, but what will we do to monitor progress in the meantime? We must check progress at least annually. Everybody will want to know how the initiative is proceeding on the ground and whether tangible benefits, actual or foreseeable, will become obvious.

My final point is raised in my amendment and has been repeatedly made by the Conservative party in this chamber. As I have said frequently to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, if we speak to business, we find that what is burdening business and the general economy in Scotland is levels of tax, red tape and regulatory burdens. The creative industries will not be immune to those levels and will be subject to exactly the same pressures and problems.

I have felt it necessary to lodge my amendment simply to reflect that, without the recognition of those very real difficulties, the other aspirations will be extremely difficult to implement practically. I have already suggested to Mr McLeish that he should use his audit impact assessment unit in the department of enterprise and lifelong learning to start to investigate the current effect of some regulatory burdens on Scottish industry. I ask Mr Stephen again to consider that suggestion and to consult his colleague Mr McLeish on it.

I move amendment S1M-1213.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"notes that the best way to expand this sector, as with all other sectors of the economy, is to ensure that tax, red tape and regulatory burdens are kept at as low a level as possible; and urges the Scottish Executive to work in close conjunction with Her Majesty's Government in order to reduce such burdens which have increased considerably since May 1997."

We have heard the future and it is mind-blowing—or perhaps mind-boggling. I have always thought that what, where, when and how were fairly basic matters when putting forward a strategy. When I was asked yesterday to speak in the creative economy debate, I wondered what the phrase "creative economy" meant. I consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines "creative" as

"able to create . . . inventive, imaginative, showing imagination as well as routine skill"

and "economy" as the administration or condition of the concerns and resources of the community. That means that "creative economy" can be defined as the inventive, imaginative administration of the concerns and resources of the community.

That sounds good. But what is the subtext of the motion when its terms are expanded and boiled down? The motion talks about

"£25 million development strategy to support . . . and to ensure conditions in which creative industries will continue to flourish rapidly in growing world markets".

So we are talking about £25 million and a wish list. Is that right, adequate or sufficient? For example, page 7 of the document talks about incubation facilities. However, the minister is not able to tell us about these facilities, where they will be located or how much they will be given.

Although we support the motion as such and accept the benefits of creating a creative headline, the document and the motion do not address any needs. First, £25 million is a drop in the ocean. World markets have been mentioned, but £25 million will not allow anyone to compete in the football transfer market, never mind in the global economy. We have to run to catch up with the competition; for example, we are falling behind the US and south-east Asia. We have much hard work to do and cannot simply wish the situation better. We need mechanisms and structures to improve that.

For a start, we need a philosophy and theory about what we are trying to achieve, not simply a wish list. We require some definition of what we are trying to do, perhaps by providing financial and structural assistance to ensure maximum benefit for the stimulation and support of these industries, to allow us to compete in a global economy.

Furthermore, we require a structure to facilitate improvements from top to bottom and to maximise benefit. How do we improve basic keyboard skills at the very bottom? How do we expand and improve the opportunity to enhance information technology and the creative skills base? How do we nurture and retain our current talent, which, in some instances, is moving?

None of those issues is being addressed. Instead of £25 million, what about a steady stream and a pool that industries can drink from rather than letting them die of thirst?

How much would Kenny MacAskill commit to this initiative?

We would probably take some money from the oil revenue that the Labour Government is currently salting into tax cuts. I do not have the books here, but the fact of the matter is that £25 million will not address the situation. Furthermore, I should tell the minister that other small nations do far better than the big nation that he is so proud of.

I have two anecdotes about the situation as it is and the situation as it can be. My brother went to stay in the state of Texas, where every child is keyboard literate by the time they leave junior school for high school. How does that contrast with the position in Scotland? Sixty-five per cent of children in primary 7 achieve level D for reading. Level D is the curriculum guideline on which attainment in literacy is measured. Therefore, 35 per cent of children do not achieve that level of literacy, and only 43.7 per cent achieve level D in writing. Texans send keyboard-literate kids to high school, but in Scotland we send too many illiterate kids to high school. We should be ashamed of that. We have a skills shortage, not just at the top but at the bottom. If we want to address that issue, not just in manufacturing and on production lines, we must give kids the opportunity to gain keyboard skills, which will allow them to compete.

I have been advised by the electronics industry that it also has problems, as simply not enough people who are computer and technology literate come through the education system. Has the Executive addressed that issue?

I am told that the school system has been slow to keep up with developing trends. At a recent Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee meeting, a witness complained that children were being taught redundant computer languages. I support the teaching of Latin, given the benefit that, as a lawyer, I received from that language, but, in the 21st century, it may be a waste of scarce resources to teach a redundant computer language when the technology has moved on.

I am also told that some teaching bodies have written to the minister to complain about the lack of technology subjects in the curriculum and about the fact that those subjects are the first victims when budgets are cut. The Executive is not addressing any of those issues.

What about the situation as it could be?

Will the member give way?

Yes.

I thank the member for giving way before he moves on to a new point.

I take on board the points about education that Mr MacAskill made, but this afternoon we are not here to debate education. I put it to him that, rightly or wrongly, we are here to debate something different and to recognise that we have a creative economy. There are people in Scotland who have special skills and we must create a structure in which they can thrive.

We heard earlier about Red Lemon Studios, which is a company that is based in my constituency. By and large, the entire staff of that company is aged under 25, which is fantastic. Surely we should be talking Scotland up rather than talking it down. We must recognise that we are trying to create the structure, although we may not have got it 100 per cent right yet.

I will pay tribute where it is due, but the points that I made were given to me by the electronics industry in Scotland. I asked the industry what it thought the problems were and the brief that I received from the industry was that it perceives the problems to be a lack of skills in the education sector. It is not enough to examine the good points and wish away the fundamental structural problems.

The view that I am articulating is not built on my personal prejudice or invective, nor is it based on the policy of the Scottish National Party. It is based on the policy position of those in the electronics industry who say to me, "This is the problem that we have."

My intervention will be brief, as I wish simply to assist in the debate.

During the recent inquiry carried out by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee into the new economy—the e-economy—we received direct from the electronic companies the information that keyboard skills were not so much the problem as attitude to business, attitude to enterprise and ability to relate with customers. Those issues are of much more significant concern than the basic ability of many youngsters to operate a keyboard.

Those issues go hand in hand and the e-mail that I received was courteous enough to mention that fact. I agree with Annabel Goldie's point, which I take on board, that the issues are complementary. However, people say: "Small countries cannot compete. This is a big world with big markets, and you need to be in the big league."

Years ago, we used to pride ourselves in Scotland when the term "Clyde-built" meant quality and strength. In the 20th century, "Clyde-built" was a world term—one could use it abroad and people knew what was meant. I have a Nokia mobile phone, but Nokia is not only a Finnish company—it is a small village in Finland near the location where the phones are manufactured. Nokia actually exists. We have moved on from the terminology of the 20th century. Apart from whisky, what product do we manufacture in this nation of 5 million people that is a world brand term in the 21st century? Nokia is one of the top five world brand terms, along with Coca-Cola and others.

People say, "Well, you're too small. You couldnae do it," but how can Finland manufacture a world brand product given that it is a country of 5 million people that is geographically distant from its markets? Perhaps the Finns won a world lottery—except that a world lottery does not exist. Perhaps they discovered oil. Perhaps that is what transformed Finland, and perhaps that is why the Finnish people, in the 21st century, have a global brand name that they can be proud of, while our shipyard industry has withered on the vine and disappeared into the Clyde. Maybe, just maybe, there are hundreds of thousands, or millions of pounds-worth—billions of pounds-worth in the future—of oil in the Gulf of Finland for the Finnish people to access.

The fact is that the Finns did it by driving forward, by targeting, by resourcing and by funding. They did it by being able, when they were producing documents and strategies, to answer questions about how they would do it, where they would do it, when they would do it and how much it would cost them. It was not done using a glossy document that keeps a printer and a graphic designer in their jobs.

What should we have? We must recognise that we need a philosophy in order to create a structure, to provide funding and resourcing. We need improvement at school level, an integration in higher education, the provision of support for centres of excellence, the recruitment of new talent and skills and the retention of existing talent and skills. We are losing businessmen and businesswomen and companies to Ireland because they are being headhunted or taken away.

We do not accept the Tories' amendment. We do not accept it and we will vote against it, because we view it as simplistic. Of course red tape needs to be cut down, but regulation has its place. We believe that, in any society, it is not just a question of the creation of a vibrant economy, but of how the weakest are looked after. We worry that when the Tories press for the ending of red tape, they put at risk the lives of individuals in an attack on health and safety matters, which are fundamental to a democratic and decent society.

We also believe that those matters are complementary and necessary; we do not believe that cutting taxes is simply a good thing on its own. In the end, we have to address matters without moving towards a society with a Dutch auction—as will happen down in Westminster—between Portillo and Brown. We are voting against the amendment because we do not seek a society in which we know the price of everything and the value of nothing. We will support the motion, as it at least acknowledges that there is a problem but that there are also opportunities, although they do not go as far or come as fast as we would like.

The document is not about a creative economy, but it is a piece of creative writing. In considering it and marking it, we should say, "Could and should do better," with more fact and less fiction, more reality and less rhetoric. It does not need to be this way; it can and should be different. I say to Ms McNeill that other small nations such as Finland have shown the way. Fundamentally, that is where the lesson for this nation lies.

I actually agreed with a lot of what Mr MacAskill had to say, particularly about this being a question of vision. I am not going to say that we as a small nation cannot do it, as Mr MacAskill put it; we are saying that we can do it. The Texas analogy is interesting, and demonstrates the wider benefit of the economic and political union with a bigger entity.

There was a time when the ideas of wealth creation and social justice seemed incompatible in Scotland. The Labour party in power has, I believe, dispelled that myth, and has ensured that the creation of wealth is being used to give chances and opportunities to those who had none, and to redistribute resources to those who need them. We call that social inclusion, and a vital part of that is for everyone to be able to take part in the cultural life of their communities. By supporting the creative industries in a way that only Labour can, we are expanding that virtuous circle of wealth creation and social and cultural inclusion.

In the current climate created by Labour, which is ideal for steady growth, we will specifically give support—as described by the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning—to help those creative industries flourish. We recognise the vital role played by the creative industries as part of a productive, successful economy. The creative industries are anticipated to grow significantly faster than the economy as a whole, and there is every indication that that trend will continue for the foreseeable future.

Labour wants to seize that opportunity for greater wealth and job creation, with the creative industries having the potential to strengthen the economy, to widen lifelong learning, to offer opportunities for people returning into the work force and to regenerate our communities, as part of the Scottish Enterprise clusters plan.

I was pleased to see ministers commit themselves to creating a proper platform for the exchange of intellectual property rights. We have been slow to find ways of protecting the most valuable asset of the new economy—knowledge. By developing a system that allows intellectual property rights to be shared and exchanged legally and efficiently, we will limit the huge losses to the music and media industries that result from copying and bootlegging. I imagine that there can be nothing more discouraging than spending money and time creating something of value, only to have it ripped off by bootleggers.

I was also pleased by the development of the cluster approach to economic growth in this sector. That involves related industries operating as a group, being at same time one another's customers, competitors, partners, suppliers or research and development sources. Partners in a cluster continue to compete, but they also share the benefits of innovative ideas and practices that make all of them more competitive. Clusters depend on collaboration rather than competition. In many ways, they are the antithesis of the laissez-faire Thatcherite economics of the past. They enable economies better to create the conditions that are necessary for companies to compete on the basis of innovation, higher value added and rising productivity, all of which support the rising wages and standards to which Labour is committed.

The energy and ideas that are created by growing industries work best when they can be shared and supported by like-minded people. We in the Labour party have always been aware that competition can be wasteful in some circumstances. Instead of Scottish companies always competing with one another, together they will compete better in the global market to which Kenny MacAskill referred if they collaborate with one another, where possible, and identify win-win solutions. The cluster approach in Scotland that has been pioneered by Scottish Enterprise currently applies to a range of sectors. The overall aim is to ensure that Scotland's small, open economy thrives in an increasingly competitive global economy.

In the United Kingdom, Scotland is considered a world leader in the creation and success of innovative cluster strategies. The Department of Trade and Industry has strongly endorsed that approach. Every one of the new English development agencies has the promotion of clusters and networks as a key part of its strategic plan. We are ambitious for these industries, as we are ambitious for Scotland. We aim over the next five years to increase the value of this sector by 30 per cent. By achieving that, we will create not only jobs but more opportunities for people to hear music, read books, watch movies and see plays. We will work with and guide the market to ensure that that happens.

I turn now to the Tory amendment. When it comes to regulation, the creative industries are not significantly different from other sectors of the economy. Since coming to power, the Labour Government has created the best economic environment for indigenous business growth and inward investment for a generation. The new 10p starting rate of corporation tax was introduced in April and came on top of cuts in the main and small business rates of corporation tax to their lowest ever levels—lower than the levels in any of our competitors. We have taken further steps to boost productivity, such as cutting capital gains tax, to create the most favourable environment that Britain has ever seen for encouraging entrepreneurs, rewarding risk taking and extending share ownership.

The truth is that Britain has one of the most lightly regulated labour markets in the world and, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, one of the most lightly regulated product markets. To meet our manifesto commitment to cut red tape, an objective that we support, we have established the improving regulation in Scotland unit to free Scottish business from needless regulation.

Labour has delivered for business, turning a huge borrowing requirement into a budget surplus.

Labour is spending more money on bailing out the millennium dome than Allan Wilson is proud of spending on this strategy. It is spending £40 million on bailing out the dome, but £25 million on something that the member has described as fundamental. Does he think that that is right?

If that is the sort of contribution that we can expect from Mr MacAskill, Mr Swinney will have to do better than arranging the deck chairs on the nationalist Titanic. Not a penny of public money has been invested in the dome. All of it is lottery money. In this debate we are talking about investing in creative industries from within our budget.

I conclude with a testimony to the efforts of the Labour Government to providing the business environment that will enable the creative industries to flourish. Interest rates are near their historic low, and long-term rates have now converged with the euro zone rates; indeed, they are probably slightly lower. Ten years ago, under the Tories, they were 3.7 per cent higher. Unemployment is at its lowest level since 1974, the last time we had a Labour Government. There is no coincidence there.

I support the motion and present a win-win scenario for the Scottish nation: economic prosperity and widening opportunity; low rates of personal taxation; and record levels of public investment. I support the motion and reject the amendment.

I agree with the minister that the debate provides an ideal opportunity for the creative industries to be properly acknowledged by the Parliament and recognised as an integral part of Scotland's knowledge economy.

The starting point must be education and the development of talent. Access to the arts as an integral part of the school curriculum allows creative potential to develop that will ultimately impact favourably on the economy. We know that children who have had that early exposure benefit greatly from their rounded educational experience. It is a pity, therefore, that local government budget restrictions mean that many teachers of art, music and drama—for example in Aberdeenshire—have lost their jobs.

I know that those working in the creative industries are enthusiastic about spending time in schools and colleges. The issue for the Executive's various strategies is how they promote and develop that enthusiasm. I remind the minister that other countries promote proper long-term management of the development of artistic excellence. In Ireland, for example, state allowances and tax breaks are provided to outstanding artists, musicians and writers. To date, that has not begun to be considered in Scotland.

New opportunities are being opened up by new technology. We need to be in a position to take advantage of that, with a structure and a plan that will result in real achievement. We have a rich literary tradition in Scotland which could be exploited more via new technology. The music industry is thriving in Scotland and there is massive potential in the recording industry. After the UK, Sweden, with a population of 8 million, has the largest recording industry in Europe—underlining the point that size is irrelevant.

In today's press, a cogent argument is set out for the development of a proper recording studio—ostensibly for film soundtracks—to complement the establishment of the Scottish film studio. I hope that the Executive's largesse will extend to supporting both projects.

Scotland has plenty of talent, but there is no doubt that it could benefit from being linked to business experience and skills. In fact, skills are the crucial factor in all of this: market knowledge skills, creative technology and interactive skills, production skills, technical skills and commercial skills.

Links between the arts and business would provide spin-off benefits all round. Artists' skills could improve the performance of business and give employment opportunities to artists. Will the minister encourage businesses to consider how they could use artists to help their businesses grow? There could be a role for designers, and for actors in public speaking and presentation.

I suggest to the Executive that there is a danger of becoming obsessed with new technology and industries. It could be argued that those are sectors that are already performing quite well, resulting—dare I say it—in the Executive making little effort and taking all the credit. The Government must not neglect traditional industries, such as cashmere and weaving, which are struggling to survive in the current economic climate. Tourism would be badly affected if traditional creative industries were neglected, because many people are attracted to Scotland by those very industries.

In conclusion, I hope that the individual artist is supported and not ignored. Sheena Wellington noted recently—on the Creative Scotland website in fact—that

"A common and serious failing of many organisations with responsibility for investment is not that they cannot think big but that they actually cannot think small. Iain Banks writing in North Queensferry, Aly Bain playing in Aberdeen or Adelaide, the poet in Stromness, the video artist in Kelty, the painter in Dumfries are the true creators. Pacific Quay may well be a wonderful project but it is far from being the be all and end all of the Creative Industries in Scotland."

The creative industries—as we now know them—have always existed in their own right, but are now clustered together so that we can identify aims and objectives common to all of them. The driving force for the better behind those industries has been the interface with technology.

I will talk exclusively about the Scottish popular music industry, which illustrates what I have just said. Clued-up members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee might recall—Brian Monteith might know about this—that White Town went straight to No 1 in the charts. It was later revealed that a young Asian had digitally mastered the whole track in his bedroom, yet the record sold all over the world. That shows how dramatically things have changed. We cannot afford to ignore what is happening in the Scottish music industry. It is no longer a matter of Ringo, Paul, George and John getting their band together.

Is Pauline McNeill suggesting that the £25 million should be invested in bedrooms, rather than Pacific Quay and other projects?

I expected Brian Monteith to make a more mature point.

We cannot continue to ignore the fact that Scotland has so much home-grown talent. Notable bands such as Travis and Garbage, which played at the opening of the Scottish Parliament, were signed outside Scotland. As many members know, it is my intention—I have not got round to it yet—to set up a cross-party group on the popular music industry. I think that Brian Monteith has signed up to participate; I hope that he will do so.

It is crucial that the Scottish Executive gets support for the industry right. Ken Macintosh and I went to the bother of bringing some Scottish musicians together to compile a submission on the national cultural strategy. Some good points were made, which we could take further. About 120,000 people are employed in the music and related industries. We ask the Executive to consider several proposals. We have mentioned facilities in schools for musicians. I am afraid to say that we think about traditional musical instruments; we do not recognise that the many young people who play the drums or guitar must be considered equally important and we must make provision for them in schools. If someone's life choice is to be a musician, careers advisers should be prepared to acknowledge that that is a legitimate choice for them.

I know that broadcasting is a reserved matter, but we must talk to the UK Government about some issues. There are national and local radio stations which pay no attention to the fact that we have home-grown Scottish talent and feel no obligation to play those artists. It causes me sadness that Beat 106, a radio station that was born in Scotland, has been sold to an independent company. It was a real example of Scotland's success.

Pauline McNeill makes an excellent point. Does she agree that it is time that the Radio Authority acted upon the discretion that it has to ensure that those who get licences cannot sell them out at huge profits within weeks of achieving them? That is directly contrary to what the Radio Authority wanted, but it does not yet have the power to do anything about that.

I agree with Mike Russell's comments. I would go further. In other European countries, it is part of the conditions of licence that 5 per cent of output should be music that is indigenous to that country. I do not know why that should not apply in Scotland. Perhaps ministers could take that up at UK level.

Allan Wilson talked about intellectual property. We cannot ignore MP3, a new technology which means that someone can download music from the internet whether it belongs to them or not. Artists are crying out for us to do something about that. Another issue is performance royalties. Monitoring is irregular and artists do not get royalties every time that something of theirs is played.

It is crucial for the Executive and the Parliament to get it right by including the Scottish music industry in the creative strategy because it is one of the few areas that will appeal to young people. Supporting the music industry is a policy with which the young can identify. We must be imaginative with our resources. It is not simply a matter of whether we put in £25 million or £50 million. There are audiences that want to listen to music—young people and schools—and there are resources out there. If we can match the two, we can drive forward to bring objectives together.

In conclusion, I want to give a wee bit of warning. The Scottish Executive has got to get the strategy right. Failure will be a problem. The musicians to whom I have spoken have no faith that the Scottish Arts Council will deliver. I know that the Scottish Arts Council has said lots of nice things about how inclusive it wants to be, but the strategy still comes across as a middle-class phenomenon. If we want to be true to the principles of social inclusion, we must get the strategy right. Sadly, there is no mention in the cultural strategy of the Scottish music industry, despite the fact that many people said that it should be included.

Finally, the existence of the new deal for musicians shows that the Scottish Executive recognises that being a musician is a legitimate career choice. That is something that we should celebrate.

Let me start by thanking Allan Wilson for his acknowledgement of the Conservative Government's role in setting in stone an economy that has endured three years of Labour administration and the rapacity of Gordon Brown.

There is widespread recognition of the positive role that cultural enterprise plays in Scottish life and the Scottish economy. That the Executive has recognised the industry's needs, however belatedly, is to be welcomed. We must encourage this fast-growing sector, but money is not enough. There must be a change in attitude and environment to enable the cultural industries to flourish. As Annabel Goldie said, the cultural industries are no different from other businesses. To flourish, they need stability in the economy, a level playing field and freedom from bureaucracy. Like many other businesses at inception, they also need someone to listen and sources of funding.

I want to concentrate on an organisation that should feature more prominently in the Executive's thinking. NESTA, the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, was set up by Chris Smith in 1998 and has been endowed with £200 million of lottery funding. Its vision is to break down the barriers faced by artists, scientists and inventors. It is driven by the belief that creativity is vital to a nation and that talent needs nurturing.

The organisation aims to seek out talent and excellence and to focus on individuals to allow them to achieve their potential, whether in music, science or the arts. NESTA seeks to generate returns by investing in the future and exploiting new ideas, and helping people to capitalise on the social and commercial potential of their ideas. NESTA's ethos is dear to my heart: it expects a return and the organisation expects to achieve self-funding status within five years.

Most heartening is that NESTA's stated aim is to take risks, which is why I believe that the initiative is to be welcomed. Its mandate is to be adventurous and daring and it is prepared to invest in marginal activity on the premise that even though some projects will fail, more will succeed, and that that success will more than compensate.

NESTA is allowed to give long-term funding—three to five-year support—and believes in sustaining businesses by sharing ideas and innovations. I will give two examples of successful initiatives in Scotland. May Miles Thomas from Glasgow works with digital film, which will revolutionise how movies are made, distributed and seen. Her grant of £48,000 will enable her to deliver toolkits for the digital film industry. Frank McConnel, a dancer from the Highlands, works to create innovative dance workshops in Highland communities.

I have focused on NESTA because it fulfils the aims that are vital in public investment to nurture new creativity in business. First, it gives long-term support. Secondly, it is risk taking rather than risk averse. Thirdly, it is self-funding in the short term. Fourthly, it seeks out innovation and fills the gaps in existing provision. Fifthly, it offers targeted and measurable support.

While the Conservative party broadly welcomes the Executive's proposals, we urge it to adopt the principles of NESTA and to ensure that the investment reaches those who are the brightest and best in the creative field, so that they are able to flourish in a Scotland that appreciates and nurtures them.

Finally, no doubt the business community will have noted that Mr MacAskill, in his first action as education and lifelong learning spokesman, is to vote against Miss Annabel Goldie's amendment. Surely that proves that only the Scottish Conservatives listen to the concerns of the business community in Scotland, and only the Scottish Conservatives can provide an Opposition voice for business. I am afraid that yet again, the SNP will fail the business community in Scotland.

I am sorry that the debate was rescheduled. People have dismissed the debate in my hearing and said, "Oh, it is just about the creative economy. What's that?" That dismissive attitude is unfortunate. Is it something to do with people's attitude to creativity and artistic endeavour? I regret that attitude and I am glad that the tone of the debate is different.

The minister and Miss Goldie gave statistics that show how substantial the creative sector is. It is an important and dynamic sector which links information technology with arts-based activities such as film making. It is growing fast and, as Allan Wilson pointed out, the details of how it affects the economy are fantastic. There are also important spin-offs for tourism. I agree with every word that Irene McGugan said. I may return to that later, because she put the case well.

I welcome a new look at the sector, because Scottish Enterprise and the business community need to change their views on it. I welcome the clusters approach embodied in the document. I welcome also the climate that is being fostered by the cultural strategy and the strategy for architecture. There is considerable room for development, but we should try to shift the concentration of those industries away from the south-east of England.

At a meeting with the director general of the BBC, I was pleased to be given a clear indication of his intention and determination to move along with the decentralisation of management and production at the BBC. He will be spending more money on programming, and he is well aware of the potential for expansion and high-quality work in Scotland. That would be a major boost for the creative industries in Scotland, and would increase production and performance opportunities, with the knock-on effect that Pauline McNeill would want of increased opportunities for music groups.

From a big organisation such as the BBC, I will move to the other end of the range. The other day I was pleased to see a press release about the joint project between the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Enterprise for a creative industry company development programme. Scottish-based record companies and book publishers are to get a helping hand, first with an initial grant and then possibly with another grant. That is an excellent idea and the right thing to do, but the total funding of £120,000 is derisory. It will help a small number of companies with a wee initial grant, and then give a couple of companies something more substantial. That is a great idea, but I hope that it will be expanded and work well.

It is important that funding bodies work together in this sphere, in the way that Scottish Enterprise and the SAC are working together. Already, there are industries in which we cannot separate the industry aspect from the creative aspect. Irene McGugan mentioned the textile industry, which is involved with computer-aided design. At its best it is artistic, but traditionally we would also think of it as an industry.

We must change the way in which the local enterprise companies think. In my constituency recently, people have wanted to set up a film studio, a record studio, a manufacturing base for a newly designed relaxation chair and so on. Every one of the people who were involved in those projects felt that the enterprise company did not quite understand where they were coming from and did not recognise the risks that had to be taken if the projects were to have a chance. I hope that the document and the debate will help to change the thinking of the LECs.

If we are to produce the bright, sparky and talented people about whom the minister talked, we must create opportunities and foster their skills, as Irene McGugan and others have said. We must develop skills in schools and we must have colleges with appropriate courses—someone from the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama told me that it was having difficulty finding funding to set up television and film courses. We must change the way we think in order to encourage talented individuals and groups. Scotland cannot afford to do without them. They enhance citizens' lives and—given the kind of boost that the Executive has outlined—will enhance our economy.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the creative economy. The attitude of the Opposition parties is unfortunate, as a level of unanimity in this chamber would have sent out a positive and constructive message to the various sectors that we depend on to deliver a meaningful strategy in the creative economy.

The Conservatives have lodged a rather pointless amendment. I know that most politicians would not decide that, if they had nothing to say they should say nothing, but the Conservatives would have been wise to do so today.

Kenny MacAskill tries to give the impression in the chamber that he has a monopoly on caring about what happens to the people of Scotland. That is not the case. The fact that we spend one afternoon debating the creative economy does not mean that we do not care about standards in schools or the fact that our children might not be as computer literate as children elsewhere. I remind members that strategies are in place that will address some of those points. It is disingenuous to give a contrary impression.

Can Kate MacLean tell me what the Executive is doing to ensure that every child will leave primary school keyboard literate? How much is the Executive spending on that? When will those policies be delivered?

I do not know exactly how much the Executive is spending on that. I know that an early intervention scheme is in place in primary schools to try to raise the standard of reading, which was one of the issues that Mr MacAskill raised. There is also funding to put computers into every classroom in this country. There are plans to get computers to poorer families. Public money is going into internet cafés and public information networks to allow every member of the public access to the internet. Those are only a few of the initiatives that are in place. I am sorry that I do not have the figures to hand, but I am sure that I can find them out and write to Mr MacAskill.

Will the member give way?

No. I answered Mr MacAskill's question and will not give way unless the question is substantially different.

I agree with Annabel Goldie on the definition of the creative industries. The Scottish Executive's definition does not include art and culture. I prefer Scottish Enterprise's definition, which does. Tragically few young artists in Scotland are able to get work that is even tenuously related to their talents. Art and culture should be included in any economic development strategy for the creative economy and I ask the minister to address why that has not happened.

My experiences in Dundee convince me of the importance of that point. To listen to the Opposition parties, one would think that Labour was trying to create a creative economy. One exists already and good examples of it can be found all over Scotland, particularly in Dundee. It is unfortunate that members of the SNP, which is supposed to stand up for Scotland, often choose to give examples of good practice in places other than Scotland.

The creative industries—including art and culture—have led regeneration efforts in Dundee. They have changed the way in which local people perceive their community and have been a major contributory factor to the transformation of Dundee's image. I know that the perception of some people, particularly in the media, has not caught up with the reality of what is happening in Dundee, but the important role that the creative industries have played and will continue to play in the well-being of the city has long been recognised by the council, Scottish Enterprise Tayside and other partners. For some time, the Dundee partnership has had an arts, leisure and tourism sub-group and more recently it has set up a creative industries sub-group. There is a good history of the public, private and academic sectors working together to develop creative industries in Dundee.

It is fair to say—I think that the minister did so—that Dundee is well placed to play a leading role in the creative industries sector in Scotland. We have key cultural centres, such as Dundee Contemporary Arts, Dundee Repertory Theatre—which is one of only three repertory theatres in the UK employing full-time actors—and the recently opened Sensation science centre.

We have world-class educational facilities. Duncan of Jordanstone College is well known for design, media and electronic imagery. The University of Abertay in Dundee is well known for computer games development and virtual reality, and has been mentioned today because the creative industries campus will be based there. Dundee College has the only accredited qualification for contemporary dance outwith London and is well known for multi-media.

As the minister said, there is a growing number of computer games and entertainment development companies in Dundee, such as Visual Sciences, which created Lemmings—I think everybody has heard of that; Rage Software, which created Grand Theft Auto; and VIS entertainment, which was mentioned by the minister.

I will wind up—

Briefly, please.

Four per cent of gross domestic product is perhaps not a huge amount. However, I do not think that anybody should underestimate the significant contribution that the creative industries make to the economy, regeneration, social inclusion and civic pride. I have seen that happen in Dundee and am happy to support the Executive today.

That speech ran on a bit. If Richard Lochhead keeps to four minutes, there will be time for a brief speech from Robin Harper.

I appreciated the value of the creative industries to Scotland when I saw the front page of the first edition of business a.m., and read that Chris van der Kuyl, who founded VIS entertainment, which Nicol Stephen mentioned, is about to float the company for £80 million. What was appalling about that was that he is the same age as I am. I now wish that I had not stopped playing Space Invaders on my ZX81 computer back in the 1980s to go and deliver SNP leaflets. Perhaps I am taking a less profitable route.

I support any strategy to promote the creative industries in Scotland. They have been responsible for the creation of many indigenous companies, which can only be good for Scotland. They provide many people with the personal satisfaction of being able to express themselves creatively while making a living from doing what they love.

The creative industries will lead to more inward investment in Scotland. People will set up companies in this country if there is creative talent here. Perhaps more important, a successful creative industry in Scotland could stop the brain drain—we could move from brain drain to brain retain. We have heard of software companies in Scotland that are going overseas to poach the best talent. That is very good.

The enterprise network and our venture capitalists must do their utmost to co-ordinate an approach to ensure that our small companies can get off the ground and our talented people can go self-employed.

I intended to mention Tayside and I am doing that not just because Kate MacLean attacked the SNP for not mentioning local examples. Dundee is in my parliamentary region. One has only to consider what is happening in Dundee to see the benefits of the creative industries. Last year I read an article stating that the software sector alone is growing by 15 per cent a year and will create an extra 30,000 jobs in the next 10 years.

Tayside is certainly tapping into the benefits. We have projects such as interactive Tayside, as mentioned by Nicol Stephen in his opening speech. We have the international centre for computers and virtual entertainment, based at the University of Abertay in Dundee, which works with the games and electronics industries and which is extremely valuable. The University of Abertay is also piloting the creative industries entrepreneur programme, which promotes self-employment for young people with tremendous creative talents who are leaving university and which introduces them to the business world. Those are the sort of things that we need more of throughout the country, not just in Dundee; we want them in Aberdeen and in other cities. I can see the benefits of such projects on my own doorstep.

We must look to the future, and education is the key. We are talking not only about high-level education, for example the software course at the University of Abertay which is very successful; we are talking about the primary school level. We are talking not only about software and games design; we are talking about arts and music, as other speakers have mentioned. It is imperative that we encourage talented people so that Scotland can get an economic and cultural contribution from them. However, as Irene McGugan mentioned, there have been massive cuts in specialist provision in schools in Aberdeenshire. In the primary school sector in Aberdeenshire in 1998, we had 52 full-time equivalent specialists; now we have only 29. That is because of the Government's policy decision to cut local government funding—a decision that is hitting the country's ability to develop the creative industry sector. Music, art and drama teaching are all suffering.

I was at a wedding recently at which a tremendous fiddler played in the band. She said that if she had not had the tuition when she was at primary school in Aberdeenshire, she would not be going to the Royal Academy of Music in London, as she is just about to do. She is a talented person who was encouraged while at primary school, but other people will lose out because of the Government's policy.

There is a lack of co-ordination in the television and film sectors. We must get all our enterprise companies and local authorities to develop that. Glasgow, Edinburgh and the Highlands and Islands have strategies, but other areas do not.

Let us not promote the creative industries in Scotland at the expense of our more traditional industries. The whisky industry, the food industry and the offshore sector are creative industries too. Let us not put all our eggs in one basket by putting all our cash into some creative industries while forgetting about our more traditional industries.

I call Robin Harper for a brief contribution of just two minutes.

This will be brief, because I have only one point that I want to make. I want to hammer home the point that Irene McGugan, Richard Lochhead and Ian Jenkins have already made: that assistance in primary schools for art, music, drama, physical education, home economics and outdoor education is in a parlous state. Those subjects have steadily declined over the past 20 years.

Before I was elected to this Parliament, I was a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland and was president of my local association. I was intimately associated with trying to give advice and assistance to the few peripatetic primary specialists who were left in Lothian region—there were between 20 and 30 of them to cover about 200 primary schools. The situation is approaching, I would say, disaster level. At one point, there was extremely good provision in that area, but now it is withering on the vine. One of the reasons for that is that education authority after education authority is employing primary specialists on temporary short-term contracts so that, when they lose their jobs, they lose them without trace because it is difficult for unions to defend them. Something has to be done about that. There has to be some joined-up thinking between what is happening in the Parliament and what is happening in education.

It is quite bizarre, when we want to produce rounded people in the creative arts, that in many secondary schools it is not possible, either at standard or at higher grade, to do both art and music, because of the way that timetables work in those schools.

We now move to winding-up speeches.

I would like to begin by welcoming to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee Alex Neil and Kenny MacAskill. Kenny was leading for the SNP today. It is just a great pity that he brought the same speech with him from the Transport and the Environment Committee to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.

During the recess, I and two of my colleagues on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee spent a day at the Alba Centre in Livingston, where we witnessed some of the best design engineers at work, creating tomorrow's new consumer products. State-of-the-art design engineering was taking place here in Scotland. Those engineers were taking pure research and knowledge created in our universities and using it to create and design the next generation of consumer products in one of the fastest-growing and most competitive markets in the world. Worldwide growth rates for the creative industries are forecast at between 5 per cent and 20 per cent per annum. The new technologies offer Scotland a unique opportunity to expand into world markets.

However, if Scotland is to seize the opportunity, we must produce graduates with the proper skills. I am glad that the minister recognised that there is a skills shortage in Scotland. That was a central message that we took away from the Alba Centre when we visited. We need to encourage more pupils to take up the hard sciences. Currently, in Scotland, the numbers of students in those subjects are declining, rather than increasing. That is a great worry.

When asked to identify what needed to be done, Professor Beaumont of the Alba Centre said that he thought that engineering in Scotland had an image problem because it was perceived as an old-fashioned, heavy industry, concerned with metal bashing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Professor Beaumont contrasted the situation in Scotland with that in India, where children aspire to become engineers because engineering has a high-tech image. He felt that the problems in producing quality engineers in Scotland stem from our schools. It is not only that there is a lack of pupils studying maths and physics, but there is inappropriate teaching of those subjects.

The irony is that design engineering is a career that can offer high starting salaries of around £24,000 per annum to the best graduates. Perhaps that is another career that Richard Lochhead should have considered when he was younger. Design engineering offers great travel opportunities and a varied career path.

Professor Beaumont offered several recommendations on how we should improve the situation. First, he suggested a sustained drive to improve the image of engineering. Secondly, he suggested that a clear message be put out to schoolchildren, stressing the benefits of an engineering career. Although there have been many such initiatives, very few have been successful and there needs to be greater co-ordination in that respect.

Thirdly, Professor Beaumont suggested preferential funding arrangements for students considering engineering, in order to increase the number of undergraduates and graduates. That is something that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee may want to investigate as we consider the student grants legislation. I hope that the new convener will take that on board. It was also suggested that physics and maths courses in schools are overly concerned with providing facts and figures, rather than encouraging pupils to think creatively.

Traditionally, design has been linked with subjects such as art and crafts, but it should also be a feature of the science disciplines. It was felt that such a cross-cutting of subjects would help to produce more imaginative courses.

Those were some of the key issues that arose during our visit. I will feed them back into the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's discussion on how to develop e-commerce in Scotland. I am sure that Rhona Brankin is aware of those issues and I hope that she will address them in her summing-up speech.

If Scotland is serious about seizing some of the unique opportunities that present themselves as a result of the worldwide growth of the creative industries, we must ensure that we have the maximum number of students and graduates with the right skills. That is fundamental in ensuring Scotland's place as a world player in world markets.

Something funny happens to politicians when they are confronted with culture. We have seen a graphic example of that today. I am not criticising individuals—some people might take it that way—but this has been one of the dullest, most boring debates that we have ever had. [Interruption.] I exempt Pauline McNeill's comments from that observation—I will come to that in a moment.

When politicians talk about culture, they get very serious and tongue-tied, and seem to forget that creativity is about excitement. One or two of us have worked in the creative industries—

Yes. He wrote the SNP manifesto.

I know that Andy Kerr was a stand-up comic in another life, but I am sure that even he would agree that, when the Scottish Executive describes the creative industries as including architecture, advertising, arts and cultural industries, design, film, interactive leisure software, music, new media, publishing, radio and television, what it means is that it is about all the things that we enjoy and like participating in. It means the things—or most of the things—that give us pleasure.

The debate is about the important things in life, yet it has been sombre and slow. As Mr McCabe knows, it is, in the language of the Parliamentary Bureau—and I can say this now that I am no longer a member of the bureau—a filler. It is a filler that was to have been included in the timetable three weeks ago on 6 September, but which was lost because of a statement from Sam Galbraith. Now it is back again.

We knew that we were in for something problematic when we heard Nicol Stephen's speech. It was the nearest that I have heard in a political speech to "Finnegans Wake". It was simply a stream-of-consciousness recitation of all the companies that Nicol had ever heard of and, presumably, one or two that he had not heard of, added by his civil servants. He did not actually mean anything. We did not actually hear what the strategy was. We did not hear any excitement about it. What we heard was a civil service response to a document, and the document itself was bad enough—it is just some of the national cultural strategy.

Lawrence Durrell once observed that the worst thing that ever happened to the world of the arts was the invention of printing, because it gave an artificial respectability to the word. The worst thing that has ever happened to new Labour was the invention of design, because all that Labour ministers do is get designed documents, such as the one that is before us today. The document is almost unreadable; it is virtually impossible to understand what is in it because it has been designed out of existence.

Does Mike Russell agree that, if it were simply to continue producing documents and glossy brochures such as this, the Executive would indeed meet its targets for expanding the design market?

Mr Monteith is probably right but, shockingly enough, the document produced for the national cultural strategy cost almost £60,000. We do not know how much today's document has cost. That money could have been used on the creative industries, but producing Executive documents such as this is not a creative industry.

The real problem with the debate has been a lack of vision and a lack of excitement. When Mr MacAskill talked about the proposals, he said that SNP members would support them—and we will. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the proposals; they will assist the creative industries.

However, they do not contain one shred of excitement or vision. In fact, they do something quite damaging. They do what the national cultural strategy does. They say, "There, we've done it and it's over and done with. Let's move on to the next thing."

I see Rhona Brankin shaking her head and we shall hear from her in a moment, but the reality is that this strategy is a way of shoving into a convenient drawer some things that might get some good publicity. It is nothing to do with ensuring that individual creative artists—and everyone in Scotland has the potential to be a creative artist—can develop. There is no way in which today's document or the national cultural strategy can achieve that.

Pauline McNeill came close to the truth when she talked about the music industry and the way in which it absorbs the energies, time and talents of a whole range of young people who want to be creators. Those people can create in that way wherever they are, using low tech as well as high tech, just for the pleasure of it. Robin Harper made the wise point that to do that, young people must be encouraged at the earliest stages of their lives. It is really no good at all producing glossy documents while failing to remember that it is children who matter. If children learn the joy of creativity, they will contribute far more to the world than they would otherwise contribute.

Everybody in the chamber was disappointed by the Conservative contribution. I am very fond of Annabel Goldie, but it was typical of her to spend her speech quoting from a kailyard cookbook and calling for lower taxes. That is what we expect from the Scottish Tories, but we would like some involvement in creativity and a vision of Scotland.

Kate MacLean made some positive points about the need for unanimity on these issues. We can be unanimous; there is no point in amending the motion. It is an anodyne motion that simply says, "We'll do this. There's a document. We're spending £25 million." What we should be doing is coming together and saying that there is a whole world out there of things that we can help with—things that the Parliament was established to help with. We should be saying, "Let's go and do that." I regret the fact that the Scottish Conservatives will not join in with that unanimity today.

Mr Russell has been speaking for five minutes 56 seconds, and I have heard no indication whatever of what he or his party would do towards the expansion of the creative industries in Scotland. He may disparage my kailyard contribution, but I doubt whether those who are fond of Scottish literature and traditional culture will endorse his comment. They might be very offended by his description of what many people see as a quite legendary contribution to creative industry in its time. The point I was making was that creative industry is difficult to define and that it has no barriers—it is to do with anything that has a creative spirit within it. His contribution so far has been remarkable for its absence of creativity.

I yield to no one, not even to Annabel Goldie, in my admiration for the late Marion McNeill and the work that she did in Scottish cookery, but that is not what we are here to talk about today. For Annabel Goldie to have that as the main substance of her speech was perhaps disingenuous.

We should be able to unite on a strategy for creating a creative Scotland. There are lots of things that have not been done. The Deputy Minister for Culture and Sport, in her reply, might address the issue of a national theatre in Scotland; it would be possible through the investment of £1 million to £2.5 million to create a national theatre, to create the people who will be involved in film and television. She might address the shortage of money in education, to do the things that Mr Harper and Irene McGugan talked about. She might address the way that investment in the creative industries is a matter not just of looking at projects such as Pacific Quay but of finding the right way to make sure that Scotland can play a full role in the world. That is not in the document "creativescotland".

We have a great deal to do. Nobody in their right mind would oppose Nicol Stephen's motion—but they would say, "Is that it?" Because if it is it, other people will have to come along later and do a great deal more. Fortunately, those people are on the SNP benches.

I hope that we now have a clear understanding of what the creative economy is. From the debate today and the documentation, it is evident that the Scottish Executive has one definition, Scottish Enterprise has another, adding arts and culture, and Highlands and Islands Enterprise has yet another, adding traditional arts and music, which should also include crafts. I do not wish to exclude any of those areas, but if we are to achieve the consensus that Mike Russell called for, first we must understand what we are talking about.

When I speak to people in the business sector, time after time I hear the concern that the Parliament has no experience of, and does not understand, business. I am sorry to say that today's debate has given greater ammunition to that view. The idea that we as a Parliament, through the Scottish Executive and Scottish Enterprise, can pick an economic sector and make it an international winner is not accepted in the business community. That is where there is a difference between our approach and that of the Executive and the SNP, and why we have chosen to amend the motion. We do not believe that it is possible to isolate certain sectors of the economy and declare them winners with our help. That is not to say that there should not be Government help, as we have outlined, to reduce legislation and the number of obstacles to the expansion of industry, but we do not think it is possible for agencies to pick and back winners. Pauline McNeill and Nicol Stephen epitomised that approach.

The creative economy is spontaneous, unpredictable and cannot be planned. The fact that music can be made in bedrooms, or that someone can invent the Dyson vacuum cleaner in a garden shed, shows that the creative spark is something in an individual, not something that is planned by the state. That is why I have questioned the suitability of backing grand projects such as Pacific Quay. The most important thing that the Parliament could do to help the creative economy would be to support the teaching of arts and humanities in schools.

As the Conservative amendment says, we should reduce immediately the burdens on businesses—businesses that exploit creative ideas for the benefit of the authors of those ideas and of their customers—that have applied in the past and that might apply at any time.

I worked with businesses in the creative economy for about 20 years. I mean not only my work with the Tory party, which created many of the ideas whose copyrights have been stolen by the current Government, but with design companies in marketing, advertising and public relations. I worked with names such as the Leith Agency, Northcross Ltd, EH6 Design Consultants, Tayburn Corporate, Scott Stern Associates and Faulds Advertising. All those companies are well known nationally and internationally and all are successful in their fields. They did not require great subsidies and leg-ups. They needed an open market and the creative spark that comes from employing high-quality people.

An example of how I believe the Executive has got it wrong is the film studio. I will deal with that in particular, in the hope that the minister might address the matter. If he is unable to give answers today, perhaps he might ponder the points that I will make.

Scottish Screen is backing a publicly funded studio at Pacific Quay and the Executive appears to be thirled to the idea. However, Scottish Enterprise's report—produced by Pieda plc—makes it clear in its detail that the Glasgow site is too small. Pacific Quay will provide two sound stages, neither of which will be larger than 12,000 sq ft. The Pieda report recommended that there should be at least five sound stages of between 6,000 and 20,000 sq ft and that the number of stages should increase when the studio became successful. The minister must consider whether Pacific Quay is merely a hook to attract BBC television production to that site, rather than an international film studio.

Will the studio have room to expand if it is successful? I have reason to doubt that it will. Will it be large enough to make the £400,000 profit—not turnover—that it will require to wash its face? Will the film studio be able to accommodate the actors and technicians and their entourages? Anybody who has seen a film being produced in Glasgow, Edinburgh or anywhere in Scotland will realise that that brings a large number of people. Will the studio at Pacific Quay have the capacity to deal with the parking requirements of trailers, caravans and articulated lorries?

There are proposals for a £225 million film studio near Gleneagles; that makes the £25 million that we are discussing seem small. There are proposals for a film studio in the west of Edinburgh, which is often connected with Sean Connery. Will those proposals have the Executive's support if they are progressed or will they find that the Executive queers their pitches in favour of the Pacific Quay proposal?

I will add a question to Mr Monteith's list. He or the minister may answer it. Has any study been done of the experience of other countries that have publicly funded film studios that have turned out to be too small or too inefficient? I ask with specific reference to the film studio at Bray in Ireland.

I thank Mike Russell for that intervention and the question that he posed. I am also thankful, of course, for the report on the subject that he will produce for the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

Mike Russell makes his point well—the proposals for Pacific Quay would do no more than bring the smallest film studio into being.

Mr Monteith keeps referring to a film studio at Pacific Quay, but the proposal is about more than that. It is about the whole BBC television network. If the BBC does not move there, there is a chance that there will be no media transmission from Scotland. I want that to be emphasised. A bridge is being built in my constituency to service that site—technicians and so on will be able to travel there.

I am delighted to hear Pauline McNeill back up my argument that Pacific Quay might well become nothing more than a glorified broadcasting studio, rather than an international film studio.

It is worthy of a Government and its agencies to promote the establishment and flourishing of all economic sectors, be they rural, urban, technical, scientific, artistic or creative. However, to achieve that we need a sound economy based on low taxation and regulation, and a healthy investment in our education sector to ensure that people have the basis of the creative spark that creates the creative economy.

The debate has provided a welcome opportunity to discuss the links between Scotland's creative and cultural life and its economic future, and the Executive is committed to providing the conditions where both can flourish.

We have celebrated some successes in those key areas today; let us spend a little time on some more. Ananova, the digitised newsreader, comes from Bellshill, whose previous favourite son was Gary MacAllister. Unlike Gary MacAllister, however, Ananova has her own website. She is the creation of the Digital Animations Group, which is one of the world's leading companies in the creation of digitised characters. We have heard about other examples such as Chris van der Kuyl's VIS entertainment and Muriel Gray's company, Ideal World.

There are also achievements to be proud of in the non-digital world. For example, three of the 10 finalists for the prestigious Jerwood prize for jewellery were Scottish artists. Squigee Textile Design—a Glasgow-based textile design studio set up two years ago by two young graduates with support from the Scottish Arts Council start-up scheme—has carried out major commissions in London, Sydney and the Hub in Edinburgh. It has appointed agents to handle its growing business in the UK, Europe and USA and is outsourcing its printing to allow more time for designing new collections.

Such Scottish successes are recognised in the UK. I have sat on the UK creative industries task force, which is chaired by Chris Smith, and our approach in Scotland is looked on with envy by colleagues elsewhere.

The task force has identified a number of issues that are critical to the future of the creative industries. Some issues, such as finance and the implication of intellectual property rights, have been raised today. Although those issues are complex, we are making progress on them in Scotland. New financial packages are being developed specifically for the sector. We have heard about the Alba Centre in Livingston, which has taken a new approach to sharing innovative thinking among a number of partners along the way. Not only do we have the skills and talents, we have a positive set of conditions to allow us to exploit them.

Will the minister give way?

Not just now—I have about eight points to respond to.

Just over a year ago, we made a commitment to develop a cultural strategy for Scotland in recognition of the fact that individual ideas, creativity and self-expression lie at the heart of a civilised society. The cultural and creative industry strategies fully complement each other; both are about long-term vision and investing for the future well-being of people in Scotland. In addition, both are about finding new ways to express ourselves and to communicate with the rest of the world.

The creative industries are particularly rooted in developments in technology, but such developments bring exciting new opportunities to more conventional creative activities. I welcome Pauline McNeill's speech on the music industry. I am particularly excited by the joint working that is going on between the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Enterprise to support innovative approaches to music and publishing that will develop and exploit the potential of the new technology.

Will the minister give way?

No, not just now.

Publishing and music have been areas of considerable strength in our cultural sector. They have brought many new and interesting works and individuals to home and international audiences, and both stand on the threshold of rapid and stimulating new opportunities. Technology and creative energy will blend to take us into new fields of excellence. I shall follow the developments proposed by the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Enterprise with great interest and I am confident that those developments will make a difference.

Scottish Enterprise will look for similarly innovative approaches to new forms and modes of expression. Its plans to develop a media cluster at Pacific Quay were alluded to and are well advanced. The strategy of bringing people together so that they can work with and learn from one another and explore the potential for joint business is critical.

Previously, such situations happened by chance; for example, Leith has become home to many advertising businesses in Scotland. Scottish Enterprise, building on its experience of cluster development in other sectors, such as semiconductors in silicon glen and biotechnology in Dundee or Midlothian, has the opportunity to develop a well-planned media campus.

As we heard, plans to establish a hub in Dundee for computer games and the electronic entertainment industry are at an advanced stage. That hub has the potential to become an international centre of excellence for the industry in Scotland.

A number of members referred to the proposed film studio, and I know that many believe that that proposal is essential in underpinning the film industry in Scotland and taking it to the next stage. In many ways, we already punch above our weight in Scotland and we should recognise the achievements of people such as Lynne Ramsay, Peter Mullan and others. A business plan has been prepared by Scottish Screen and I advise Brian Monteith that we are considering that plan closely. The studio will give the campus a state-of-the-art digital production facility as well as allowing for more conventional studio activities.

We can realise our potential in television and film only if we capture the imaginations of our young people. We must encourage them to think, to explore, to express ideas, to write, to draw, to paint, to design, to sculpt, to play or just to indulge their creative fantasies, purely for the fun of it. In the cultural strategy, we set out the view that schools can and should be centres of creativity. We can use culture to help children to acquire the skills that they will need for their future lives. Self-confidence and team working will be important, but creative thinking is equally vital.

I will deal with some of the specific points raised by members. Annabel Goldie's speech gave us some food for thought—[Members: "Oh."] That was a poor joke. While I am happy to recognise the importance of food to Scottish culture, Miss Goldie's comments on regulatory constraints and new burdens on business were irrelevant, as we are rigorous in limiting those to the minimum. We must focus on the potential.

While I welcome Mr MacAskill's support for the motion, it was expressed in a rather typically ungenerous way. Yet again, the SNP talks down Scottish success. He talked about skill shortages in the information and communications sector; I will tell him what we are doing to address those shortages. We are taking action to improve the level of ICT skills in Scottish universities and colleges by investing £15 million over three years from the spending review settlement. We are providing an extra £5.5 million for individual learning accounts, to improve access to learning opportunities. We have earmarked £12 million for initiatives on institutional and international university computing and ICT links.

Kate MacLean spoke articulately about the ICT developments that are taking place in our schools. If, as Kenny MacAskill said, we have such a lack of technological skills, how do we manage to produce people such as Chris van der Kuyl? Many of our leading-edge digital entrepreneurs are in their 20s. What is happening in Scotland is exciting and innovative and we should not continue to talk it down.

Irene McGugan mentioned the importance of creativity in schools. That is exactly why we plan to put cultural champions into Scottish schools. She also mentioned tourism, and I agree that culture is vital for Scottish tourism. That is exactly why we are developing the important niche market of cultural tourism—today, I chaired the first meeting of the new group on cultural tourism.

I recognise and value Pauline McNeill's work on the music industry in Scotland. There is indeed a lot of work to do. I have alluded to current developments, including the study of the recording industry that is being undertaken by the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Enterprise; other interesting developments include those at the proposed school of music and recording technology in Ayrshire. As Pauline McNeill said, music inspires many young people. When we talked to young people and asked them what culture meant to them, many of them replied that music was important. That is why we need to consider how school cultural champions can widen the opportunities available for youngsters to play musical instruments, to develop work on the setting up of bands and to take part in popular music in schools.

Kate MacLean recognises clearly the importance of culture and the creative industries to Dundee. In our cultural strategy, we specifically recognise the importance of using culture as a tool for cultural development.

Mike Russell told us that he has worked in a creative industry. The only creative industry that Mr Russell has been involved in, as has been suggested, was the SNP's manifesto. In typical form, he described the debate as boring and lacking in excitement. That describes his speech exactly.

As the Parliament has heard, the Scottish Enterprise cluster strategy aims to expand the creative sector by 30 per cent over the next three to five years, to develop the talent and skills base and to raise creative exports to 15 per cent of the Scottish total.

To achieve its potential, the business will need to be complemented by a dynamic, healthy cultural sector, the achievement of which is embodied in the cultural strategy's vision. Those are ambitious projects, and the vision that they embody must have the support of the Parliament. We need to develop our creative potential to maintain Scotland's viability in increasingly competitive world markets.

For all those reasons, I urge members to vote for the motion in support of the creative economy and to support the Scottish Enterprise strategy and the cultural strategy.