I HAVE been following the debate in the media and at council meetings over the future of the Swan Theatre.

It appears that a number of councillors are concerned about the council's finances and see the reduction of grant to the Swan as a cost-cutting measure to save the city from bankruptcy. How admirable.

As a lifelong supporter of the arts I think we must not lose sight of the intrinsic value of cultural enrichment.

But with regard to monetary enrichment I think our council needs to think again.

For those who see culture as just a bit of fluff for the cognoscenti, then just consider the following:

Towns and cities that have a clear cultural policy and support their local arts benefit economically. One only has to look at Glasgow, which was European city of culture in 1990.

They saw ticket sales increased by 364 per cent. Day visitors alone rose by 44 per cent, resulting in an additional spend of £22m and the value of accommodation bookings rose by 80 per cent. Job creation was estimated at 5,500 person years.

It is not just tourists who are drawn to such centres of culture but business - and business generates money for the city coffers. This is why Birmingham is vigorously striving towards the same title.

Canterbury, a city of similar size to Worcester, had the vision to apply because a cultural policy is investment for the economic future of their city. What about ours?

A report in 1999 showed that Worcester City had 2.5 million visitors in one year and that this brought £78m pounds to the city economy.

The council wants to save £83,000 by cutting the theatre's grant.

This cut will mean a loss to the city economy of £1.6m.

Do the maths. Culture is hard business and it is the lifeblood of our economy. Don't let the council make the city go bust.

SHEILA FARRELL,

Worcester.