Creative Scotland Open Fund for Individuals (Closure)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact on the culture sector and livelihoods of the reported closure of Creative Scotland’s open fund for individuals due to budgetary constraints. (S6T-02065)
With your permission, Presiding Officer, I will begin by mentioning today’s memorial service for Euan MacDonald, who died recently from motor neurone disease. Euan lived with MND for 20 years. In partnership with the University of Edinburgh, he established the Euan MacDonald Centre for motor neurone disease research and the voicebank study, which enables people to preserve their voice if they are at risk of losing it due to illness. Working with his sister, Kiki, he set up Euan’s Guide, which is used by disabled people to review, share and discover accessible places to visit. He was an inspiration, and I am sure that all members will extend their condolences to his family today.
In answer to Mr Stewart’s topical question, I am well aware of the potential impact on individuals of decisions made by Creative Scotland about its open fund. I extend my thanks to the many people in the culture and arts sector in particular who have been in touch to underscore how important that fund is, and I assure them and members of the Scottish Parliament that I am working extremely hard with colleagues across the Government to ensure that the appropriate funding decisions are made to sustain and support the culture and arts sector.
Announcements will follow in the pre-budget fiscal update. The Government remains committed to increasing financial support for culture and the arts.
I associate myself and my party with the cabinet secretary’s comments regarding Euan MacDonald.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. Writing in an open letter, more than 170 artists have warned that a culture catastrophe is in progress and that job losses are already taking place in the sector. The situation is dire, and it is clear that urgent and substantial action is required.
How do you justify abandoning a sector that sustains more than 80,000 jobs and contributes more than £5 billion to the economy? Has the cabinet secretary met Creative Scotland or other organisations in order to listen to the concerns that they have expressed?
Concerns have been raised by the creative sector, rather than by Creative Scotland itself, but I am content to meet any members of the culture and arts sector, many of whom have written to me about this very issue.
It is disappointing that Creative Scotland took the decision about the open fund before the Scottish Government could complete due diligence to release funding, as is normal practice. The Scottish Government provides significant funding to Creative Scotland each year and will continue doing so. Members will recognise my oft-stated commitment to increase funding for the culture and arts sector and I look forward to updating colleagues about that shortly.
It is hard to believe that, at the Scottish National Party conference only 11 months ago, the then First Minister announced a huge vote of confidence in the future of the cultural sector. Following the recent success of the Edinburgh fringe festival, the announcement of the closure of Creative Scotland’s open fund for individuals is nothing short of a betrayal of the artists and cultural workers who made that success possible. Cabinet secretary, how will you rebuild trust from a sector that has consistently been let down?
Please speak through the chair at all times.
I again make the point that the Government and I are committed to increasing funding for culture. I think that the member is aware that that stands in contrast with the outgoing United Kingdom Conservative Government and the incoming Labour Government cutting cultural funding through the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and cuts to culture in Wales by the Welsh Government.
I remain committed to securing additional funding for the culture and arts sector, because we acknowledge how important it is. I would welcome colleagues from other parties doing everything that they can to join the culture and arts community, me and my colleagues in the Government, who are doing everything that we can to get the appropriate funding in place as quickly as possible to ensure that the sector is not only safeguarded and sustained but can thrive in the future.
There is much interest in asking a question, so concise questions and responses would be appreciated.
I have had recent discussions with Eden Court in Inverness, among others, regarding its concern about supporting local Highlands and Islands artists without the open fund. Will the cabinet secretary speak to what support is available to such people, particularly given that they have lost opportunities through Brexit?
One of the particular projects that I am very supportive of is Culture Collective, which does a lot of good work in the north of Scotland and is supported through funding from the Scottish Government. I am committed to that. I am also committed, more generally, to making sure that arts funds, including the open fund, are open for artists in order to ensure that the cultural sector can thrive. I assure my colleague that everything is being done in the Government at the present time to ensure that the funding is safeguarded and is provided as a priority. I was committed to that more than a year ago and I remain committed to doing it now and into the future.
I associate myself with the cabinet secretary’s remarks about the late Euan MacDonald.
This is a total mess, and Scotland’s artists are paying the price for the Government’s incompetence and poor planning. Angus Robertson talks about the commitments that he has given. He gave the sector a gold-plated commitment to replenish £6.6 million to Creative Scotland, but that funding has yet to transpire. The open fund is closed and, as we have heard, the overall lack of certainty has led to some of Scotland’s biggest names, including Paolo Nutini and Biffy Clyro, warning of an impending “cultural catastrophe”. Given the constant cycle of promises followed by cuts, how can Scotland’s arts and culture sector have confidence in its future and in anything that the cabinet secretary says now?
I will take absolutely no lessons on austerity from the Labour Party when it comes to funding anything. The member’s party in government in the United Kingdom is cutting funding for culture and the arts. That is a fact. This Government is increasing funding. I remain committed to doing so, and I hope that he will welcome the good news to come.
After previous uncertainty, the cabinet secretary confirmed in an answer to me in November 2023 that the Scottish Government was committed to providing the shortfall funding of £6.6 million to Creative Scotland for 2024-25. In my response, I described that as a U-turn on a U-turn on a U-turn, and it appears that we have another U-turn.
Cabinet secretary, I make a plea to you to be fair, transparent and open with Scotland’s culture and creative sector. At the moment, it is a hokey cokey.
I remind members again that they should always speak through the chair.
I hope that there is universal understanding across the chamber that Creative Scotland is an arm’s-length organisation that makes decisions. It is not for Government ministers to dispense largesse to parts of the cultural sector that they particularly support.
I agree that it is important that the funding is in place to make sure that culture can be sustained and safeguarded and can thrive. I remain committed to that and continue to argue for that in the Government. My colleagues are very supportive of that, and I hope to update colleagues on that in the near future.
In the short term, it is essential that the cabinet secretary finds a solution to the closure of the open fund, which is causing great concern to all our constituents. For the longer term, I want to come with positive solutions. We have already persuaded Parliament to pass legislation to give councils the power to introduce a visitor levy. We are now making the case for a stadium levy on large profitable events—again, that is a way of raising revenue to fund culture and the arts. Does the cabinet secretary agree that empowering local government to raise revenue from those who make significant profits is the most effective way that we can find to solve the problem and generate the funds that are needed?
I am sure that the Presiding Officer would wish me to focus my reply in relation to the open fund, which I know that the member is very committed to. However, he is right to point out that there are other potential income sources. The visitor levy will play an important part in that. If he has specific suggestions, I am open to hearing from him and from his colleagues.
Last month, I met the executive director of the Edinburgh International Festival. Although the festival is, in large part, the jewel in the crown of Scotland’s cultural offering, its survival is not inevitable and its executive director, Francesca Hegyi, reminded me that a lot of that work is sustained by the smaller arts groups that are funded through the open fund.
Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the 3 million visitors who come to Edinburgh for our festivals do not just stay in Edinburgh but visit all parts of Scotland? They are vital for our economy, so investing in the arts is actually an investment in our economy.
The point about festivals is well made. It is not just about the tremendous festivals that we have in Edinburgh. We have tremendous festivals such as Celtic Connections and others over the length and breadth of Scotland. That is why, at the time of the festivals, the Government has announced a strategic partnership with our festivals across the country, to make sure that they can thrive in the future. I remain absolutely focused on making sure that the appropriate funding is in place and that Creative Scotland has the funds that it requires to do the job that it needs to do. The support and assistance from members across the chamber and the great many people in the arts and culture community who have been in touch in recent weeks to underscore the importance of the open fund are extremely persuasive, and I am doing everything that I can in the Government to make sure that the appropriate funding is in place.
I note with great interest the cabinet secretary’s comments, and I await with optimism updates in the coming days. However, does the cabinet secretary agree that, to a certain extent, this situation has arisen because of a wider financial picture, in that the Scottish Government awaits with great interest the United Kingdom Government’s final budget at the end of October and will not have its own funding tied down until February 2025? To what extent has that played a part?
Michelle Thomson’s points about the challenges are well made—in particular, about the challenges for colleagues who have to deal, in the first instance, with budgetary considerations across the Scottish Government. As the cabinet secretary who has responsibility for culture, I know that the Government has given a commitment not just to protect but to increase culture funding. I remain committed to that, as does the Government, and I look forward to updating colleagues on that in the near future.
Poverty-related Educational Attainment Gap
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of its work to tackle the poverty-related educational attainment gap, in light of the gap reportedly widening across all school qualifications in the recent exam results. (S6T-02081)
The most recent set of results from Scotland’s schools shows that, for national 5 and higher, the attainment gap has returned to levels that are broadly comparable with those in 2019—which, due to changes made during the pandemic to qualifications requirements, is the last comparable year on record. The results also show record levels of young people achieving technical and vocational qualifications, with an almost 25 per cent increase on the year prior. There has also been an increase in students from the most disadvantaged communities gaining a place in higher education—a 12 per cent increase this year alone.
Notwithstanding that, it is clear that the pandemic is continuing to have a lasting impact on our children and young people, here and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Responding to this year’s results, I convened a meeting with directors of education to focus on improvement and local variation, along with the chief examiner and the interim chief inspector of education. Post-pandemic, it is imperative that the Government works to drive improvement in our schools. To that end, in the coming weeks, I will set out further detail pertaining to the Government’s response in relation to qualification reform and school improvement.
The education secretary chooses her milestones carefully. She knows that the Government will be measured on the promise that it made in 2016 to close the poverty-related attainment gap. Eight years into that promise, how confident is she that it will be delivered by 2026?
It is worth pointing out the progress that has been made thus far in relation to closing the gap. I do not take away from the challenge, some of which is not of this Government’s making. However, we have seen a narrowing of the gap—for example, in the December statistics for primary 7 literacy and numeracy. We have also seen progress in our young people going on to positive destinations—since 2009, the attainment gap has narrowed by 60 per cent in that regard. As I intimated in my initial response, we have also seen really strong progress this year in the widening of access, with a 12 per cent increase in university acceptance for those from our poorest communities. I do not take away from the on-going challenge, but I hope that Mr Rennie can recognise that progress.
The financial context in which the Government is operating is also relevant. If an austerity agenda continues to be pursued by the Westminster Government—irrespective of party—that will hamper the progress that I as education secretary am able to make, because I will have less money at my disposal to make the necessary progress in closing the gap.
It seems that the Scottish National Party Government is focused more on finding excuses than on closing the poverty-related attainment gap. The cabinet secretary is also incredibly selective with her statistics. I know that we all like to choose our own statistics, but she will be measured on the promise on the poverty-related attainment gap, as set out by the former First Minister in 2016. What does she say to the thousands of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to whom a promise was made that has so far failed to be delivered?
The member talks about the selective use of statistics. When I was teaching modern studies, we used to talk about people being selective in their use of facts.
In my initial response to Mr Rennie, I talked about national 5 and higher. Mr Rennie might want to look at the results this year for advanced higher, where we have seen a slight widening of the gap. Why is that the case in relation to that qualification? It is because we have seen an increase in the number of students sitting that qualification. I think that that is a good thing, because in the past—certainly when I was at school in Mr Rennie’s constituency, which is some time ago now—there was gatekeeping in relation to that qualification: children were essentially told that they were not bright enough to sit that qualification. I do not think that that was right and I think that we now have a far broader approach to qualification entry. Undoubtedly, that will have an impact on attainment, but we have seen progress in relation to closing the gap.
Earlier, I rehearsed some of the narrative in relation to our performance at primary 7 level and positive destinations, but the final point to make is that Scotland is not an outlier in relation to closing the poverty-related attainment gap. For both A level and GCSE this year, the gap between the highest and lowest-performing regions in England has grown and remains higher than it was before the pandemic. I am not using that as an excuse in response to Mr Rennie’s point; I am saying that that is the context. What is being felt in Scotland is being felt all over the UK; the cohort of young people who are in front of teachers right now have lived through a pandemic—
Briefly, cabinet secretary.
We should all be mindful of what that means in relation to their outcomes.
I am keen for more members to have an opportunity to put questions, so concise questions and responses would be appreciated.
Eight years since the promise to close the poverty-related attainment gap was made, is the cabinet secretary in a position to provide us with a credible written strategic plan that she is working to in order to close the gap, or is she making it up as she goes along?
I think that Mr Kerr is well aware that the Government’s plan is the Scottish attainment challenge, which has over £1 billion of funding coming during this parliamentary session to close the poverty-related attainment gap. [Interruption.] Mr Kerr does not think that that is a good idea. I think that it is a pretty substantive plan and he should engage with the detail of it if he is interested. However, if he listened to my initial response—as I hope he did—he will know that I also stated very clearly that I would give a fulsome written update on qualification reform in the coming weeks, which will set out a clear trajectory in relation to improvement.
Central to the poverty-related attainment gap is the issue of poverty itself, with thousands of children being pushed into poverty by the austerity agenda, which the Liberal Democrats were central to ushering in. Does the cabinet secretary agree that one of the most important things that we can do in relation to improving educational attainment is to eradicate child poverty?
The member makes a hugely important point. What drives the attainment gap is poverty, caused by more than a decade of austerity and brutal cuts that have been supported by both Labour and the Tories. Children and families are bearing the brunt of Tory cuts to social security and brutal policies such as the two-child limit, which we now know is supported by Keir Starmer and the Labour Party.
We also know that modelling that has been published estimates that Scottish Government policies will keep 100,000 children out of relative poverty in 2024-25, with relative poverty levels being 10 percentage points lower than they would otherwise have been. Meanwhile, the Tories and Labour are committed to doubling down on austerity, which impacts on attainment and poverty.
At the weekend, the cabinet secretary said that she could not raise attainment with fewer teachers, yet teacher numbers will be cut this year. Later this afternoon, it is likely that we will hear of further pressures to local government and school budgets. Far from reforming anything in education, the cabinet secretary is putting forward an education bill that essentially achieves very little. Fewer teachers, fewer resources and what has been dubbed as pretty meaningless reform—is that really the plan to raise attainment and close the poverty-related attainment gap?
I am sure that Pam Duncan-Glancy will recognise that there was an increase in the number of secondary teachers last year. I am sure that she would want to record that fact. Of course, in Scotland, we have the lowest pupil-teacher ratio—far lower than in Labour-run Wales, for example. I am sure that the member would also like to recognise that. I am sure that Ms Duncan-Glancy would also like to recognise that we spend more per pupil in Scotland than in any other part of the UK, and I am sure that she would love to recognise that Scottish teachers are the best paid in the UK because of investment from this Government.
The member talks about reform, and I look forward to engaging with her in that process to improve the outcomes for Scotland’s children and young people, but I very much hope that she can recognise this Government’s inputs into supporting our education system.
What assessment has the cabinet secretary made of attainment with regard to the impact on the teaching and learning environment of the increasing levels of violence and threat that are being reported in classrooms, and what will she do about that?
I know that the member takes a keen interest in the matter, and I hope that he will be attending to hear my statement on the behaviour action plan that I will give to the Parliament later. He will be aware that we published the action plan two weeks ago. It responds to the assessment that the Government undertook on the impact of behaviour on attainment, which was published in the behaviour in Scottish schools research towards the end of last year. I encourage the member to engage with that data if he has not already done so, and I look forward to engaging with him further following the statement later today.
That concludes topical questions.
Air ais
Business MotionAir adhart
Community Cohesion