Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have said repeatedly that the attendance of ministers at sports events, where appropriate, should be supported by the Government. The issue now is about the conduct of the cabinet secretary, Neil Gray, and his two apologies.

As the cabinet secretary referenced yesterday, he told Parliament in an answer to me on 14 November 2024:

“I will need to double check, but I believe that officials attended all the events with me and there will be a note available on what was discussed”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2024; c 53.]

On what date was the veracity of Mr Gray’s answers to Parliament double checked, and how is that confirmed in civil service records?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Further to that point of order, I raise a point of order concerning standing order rules 13.1 and 13.2. On 14 November, I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Neil Gray, to publish minutes showing what issues were discussed for all and not just the majority of the matches that he used the Scottish Government car service to attend.

In response to my question, Mr Gray said:

“there will be a note available on what was discussed”—[Official Report, 14 November 2024; c 53.]

and, in answer to Mr Kerr, he said:

“summaries will be available for all the engagements that I have been participating in.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2024; c 57.]

However, as we have heard, subsequent freedom of information responses from the Scottish Government have not included summary notes for all the events in question.

Attendance by ministers at sports events, where appropriate, should be supported by the Government. I have never questioned that, but the question that I asked in November was about whether the cabinet secretary had followed the correct rules and protocols. My question today is about the apparent inconsistency between what Mr Gray told Parliament and what the Government has published. There is the significant risk of a perception that the cabinet secretary might have misled Parliament, and that situation cannot be allowed to stand.

More than two months have passed, but the Official Report has not been updated. Given the amount of time that has passed, it is my view that Mr Gray should therefore give a further statement to explain that glaring inconsistency. Presiding Officer, can you confirm that, under rule 13.1, a member can request a personal statement and that, under rule 13.2, a ministerial statement can be requested? Can you also confirm that both of those avenues are available to Mr Gray, either to clarify his own remarks or to confirm whether the Government is deliberately withholding information that he stated would be available?

To ask the Scottish Government what estimate it has made of the number of children and young people leaving school unable to swim. (S6O-04203)

Community access to swimming has been massively reduced through pool closures and cuts to opening hours. Costs are rising for families, too. Not every school has a pool and it is getting harder to go swimming outwith school.

We know from Scottish Swimming that, some time ago, up to 40 per cent of primary school-aged children left school unable to swim. That should be a serious concern for us all, including the Scottish Government. Next week, the Parliament will consider Scottish Swimming’s petition concerning the proposed closure of school pools, including five in Dundee.

Does the minister accept that that all makes it more difficult to ensure that primary school-aged children have the opportunity to learn how to swim and the basics of water safety? What is the Government’s plan to make sure that they can do so?

I will come on to that. I would certainly not disagree with Mr Kerr about that.

Of course we welcome the intention to increase the culture budget for the next financial year, as has been announced in the draft budget: it would be churlish not to. We welcomed the Government’s statement of intent, back in 2023, to increase funding. We demanded that the cabinet secretary set out a timeline for delivery, and I have been holding the Government to account so that it keeps its funding promises ahead of the draft budget.

I wish to make two important points. First, the welcome uplift in funding for Scotland’s arts and culture budget is a direct result of the new United Kingdom Labour Government’s record funding settlement to the Scottish Government. With £5.2 billion more coming to Scotland over the next two years, the cabinet secretary simply cannot argue that that is a coincidence.

Secondly, I do not think that anyone in the culture sector is going to be eternally grateful to the Scottish National Party Government just for keeping a promise to provide restorative funding.

Scottish Labour welcomes the debate on valuing and supporting Scotland’s culture sector, because Scottish Labour has consistently supported the sector’s efforts to receive proper funding. We recognise the funding crisis that has engulfed cultural organisations and workers for far too long: indeed, we have used our debating time in Parliament to lead calls for supporting the culture sector and for the Scottish Government to do the right thing and to keep its funding promises.

Scotland’s cultural organisations have faced a perfect storm of crises and a constant cycle of promises followed by cuts. People are right to question why we are now having a debate in Government time about support for the culture sector. I presume that it is because, after years of uncertainty and standstill funding since 2018—as Creative Scotland reminded us last week—the cabinet secretary believes that the Government finally has something positive to say or, in other words, it has stopped adding to the financial problems that the sector has been facing.

I give way to Stephen Kerr.

I was not going to mention Brexit in this speech, but Ms Thomson has raised it, and there are issues relating to Brexit that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee is considering in trying to improve the Brexit deal that we have—ensuring that there are more visas for touring artists, for example.

I return to the budget. Anne Lyden, who is the director general of National Galleries of Scotland, warned Parliament last week that

“it is very welcome that additional funding is coming to culture, but it is quite simply too little, too late. That is why we still find ourselves in a state of precarity.”

We often hear that the crisis facing the sector is a result of the pandemic. Ms Lyden was also right when she said:

“I do not think that we are still recovering from Covid; we are recovering from before Covid. Year on year, adequate funding has not been coming in.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 9 January 2025; c 8.]

There is no need for the Scottish Government or the cabinet secretary to pat themselves on the back and say, “Everything is hunky-dory.” Those are not the only concerns that exist—there are many more.

I am sorry—I will not take one just now.

The Musicians Union, in its briefing for today’s debate, rightly raised the issue of how money is allocated, saying that

“Increased funding must also drive the delivery of fair work for the creative industries, with funding for the arts providing a key mechanism to achieve this through more robust funding conditionality.”

Given the cabinet secretary’s earlier remarks, I hope that we make progress towards that point.

As Murdo Fraser said, the Music Venue Trust has raised concerns about the lack of support for larger music venues, such as the Voodoo Rooms, which is in the cabinet secretary’s constituency. As Murdo Fraser also highlighted, reassurances are needed regarding stronger safeguards after the scandal of public funds being wrongly awarded by Creative Scotland to the sexually explicit film project, Rein.

In yesterday’s The Scotsman, an article by Brian Ferguson summarised significant concern that Creative Scotland

“will be forced to spread the jam really thinly”

when funding decisions are made, because the cabinet secretary has wished for

“the maximum number of artistic organisations to receive the funding.”

Clearly, everyone wants more organisations to be supported, but the Government and Creative Scotland need to provide clarity on how the additional budget will affect organisations that have been on standstill funding.

For example, the highly successful Beacon Arts Centre in Greenock, which raised 70 per cent of its own income, is just one organisation that is looking for clarity and says that an uplift in its funding will be

“crucial to ensuring the survival of the Beacon for future generations and delivering their ambitions.”

That includes creating new posts, expanding its programme and supporting the work of emerging artists. My colleagues Foysol Choudhury, Colin Smyth, Michael Marra and Paul Sweeney will all raise issues relating to their local areas in their speeches this afternoon.

The Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee has recognised that “confidence remains low” in the sector because of that uncertainty, and trust still needs to be rebuilt because of the SNP Government’s actions. The sector has faced a constant cycle of promises followed by cuts. Despite the planned funding increase, cultural organisations cannot be fully certain that they will receive it, because promised funding has failed to materialise promptly in previous financial years, including the current one.

In December 2022, John Swinney announced a £6.6 million cut to Creative Scotland’s budget. In February 2023, after pressure, he reinstated it, but the very same cut was reimposed in September 2023. We heard more promises one month later, but in August 2024, Creative Scotland closed the open fund due to uncertainty over its funding from the Scottish Government. There were more than two years of the Scottish Government causing anxiety by doing the hokey cokey on culture funding, so no wonder that confidence remains low.

Indeed, it has not just been two years—there have been 18 years of overpromising and underdelivering by the SNP. We have a culture sector that is in crisis: festivals have gone, theatres have shut their doors, nearly 100 libraries have closed, historic buildings such as the former territorial army building in Paisley are being demolished, and children and young people are not getting the opportunities that they deserve.

To sum it all up, this week, just 11 days before Burns night, we were told by the Scottish Qualifications Authority that interest in our national bard, Robert Burns, is on the wane in our schools. The move to downgrade Burns from higher English is a slight on Scottish culture.

This does not look like a Government that values culture. People who care about Scotland’s culture sector should not have had to campaign so vociferously and fight to get the funding that was pledged to them, but they had to do that. When they do not have to do so, the Scottish Government can say that it values and supports Scotland’s culture sector.

I move amendment S6M-16092.2, to leave out from second “welcomes” to end and insert:

“acknowledges the scale of the crisis that the culture sector has been suffering over a number of years; notes that the Scottish Government has not held a debate on support for the culture sector in the current parliamentary session until now; welcomes the intention to increase the culture budget by £34 million in 2025-26, following the record budget settlement of £47.7 billion to the Scottish Government from the UK Labour administration; notes the observation by the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee that the culture sector’s ‘confidence remains low due to the lack of clarity from the Scottish Government regarding its priorities for the additional investment’, and believes that Scotland’s cultural communities must be supported to continue to develop and innovate in exhibition, performance and participation in Scotland’s artistic life.”

Many areas in Scotland do not have access to any cinemas at all and rely on the Screen Machine to experience film. The Scottish Government has previously stated that it would consider all options for purchasing a new Screen Machine, because the current one is leased and is not suitable for all locations.

In the light of the record funding settlement for the Scottish Government by the new United Kingdom Labour Government, and the fact that the two previous Screen Machines were procured by the previous Labour and Liberal Democrat Scottish Government, what support is the Scottish Government proposing to provide in order to purchase a new Screen Machine?