Chamber and committees

I know that we are stuck for time, so I will ask two quick questions.

There has been a lot of discussion about engagement. The vast bulk of education is delivered through local authorities. I am aware of one local authority that appointed a pupil from each of its secondary schools to its statutory education committee. It tried to give them full voting rights, but it was not allowed to do so by law. Have you heard of any other councils doing that? Would it be a good idea?

My other question relates to the social media situation. I have not, unlike Willie Rennie, had lots of complaints about violence in schools in my constituency. I have had a lot to do with additional support needs and individual parents. However, I had two secondary 3 classes from Dunblane in Parliament recently, on the same day that the convener was asking questions about behaviour in schools.

I asked the two teachers about their experience, and they said that one of the most alarming things was the increase in misogyny. I was interested to hear somebody talk about misogyny becoming a hate crime, which I think is the Government’s intention. In particular, those teachers mentioned young men seeing Andrew Tate and repeating the stuff that he says.

Is that your experience, Beinn? I ask you first of all because you are a young man. Have the others had the same experience? Those teachers were just stunned by some of the stuff that was being said. It is like we are going backwards rather than forwards.

What I referred to was not a youth forum; it was young people being members of the council’s education committee.

Will the member take an intervention?

With regard to cultural neglect, will Mr Kerr acknowledge that, according to Equity, between 2018 and 2023, the culture budget reduced by 11 per cent in England, where his party was in control, and increased in Scotland? In his area, the cuts at the local government level are the responsibility of Stirling Council, which is run by Labour and the Conservatives.

Will Mr Kerr take an intervention?

First, I think that it is worth saying that there is a degree of consensus on the fact that the Scottish Government has proposed a historic £50 million increase in funding for investment in our cultural landscape. That is a significant step towards the Government’s target of raising funding by £100 million by 2028-29, and it demonstrates the Scottish Government’s commitment to supporting culture during these challenging times.

I agree with other speakers—in particular, Maggie Chapman and Evelyn Tweed—on the value of culture for us all. Maggie Chapman talked about how it reminds us of the “shared humanity” of the country in which we live, and that is a very important point.

It is also true to say that many references have been made to the past, and the Royal high school has been mentioned a couple of times. When I was a kid, we used to get the bus there on a Monday morning to go to the swimming pool, which was in the future chamber of the proposed assembly at the time. It is sad to see how that building has not been developed over the years. It is interesting to note that it was reclaimed by the council in Edinburgh for, I think, £1, because, under a pre-emption clause, the council had the right to reclaim it after the war, when it had been taken over by the Government.

We also heard Clare Adamson, our committee convener, talk about the 7:84 Theatre Company. As someone who is a bit older than Clare Adamson, I remember the impact that “The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil” had on Scotland, the relevance that it had and the relevance that it still has to Scotland’s situation. Interestingly, I saw a revised version of that play last year at the Royal Lyceum—it was a fantastic production.

While we are looking into the past, a couple of points really have to be made. We heard from Neil Bibby, who refused to take my intervention, and others about the idea that it is revisionism on the part of the cabinet secretary to talk about the new funding that has now made been available, and that he was ignoring the past. Well, let us take a wee look at the past. Equity has produced a report that says that, between 2018 and 2023, funding for the arts and culture fell in England by 11 per cent, in Northern Ireland by 16 per cent and in Labour-run Wales by 30 per cent. Funding for culture in Wales, which is run by Labour, fell by 30 per cent, whereas in Scotland it increased. We would never have guessed that from Neil Bibby’s contributions.

The other thing that undermines any credibility that Labour would have is the fact that, whenever we see a Labour minister on TV these days, they start the interview by talking about the horrendous record that they have inherited from the Tories. I have a lot of sympathy with that, but they pretend endlessly that it had no effect in Scotland. It obviously undermined all that Labour did in Wales, including all the cuts to local government there, but it had no effect in Scotland—that was entirely down to the SNP. That gives Labour no credibility whatsoever.

It is also the case that, when Labour makes all its demands for more money, it refuses to say how much more money it is talking about and where it would come from. Will Labour, for once, have the gall to propose an amendment to the budget that advocates for more money for culture? I am guessing that it will not, as it has never done that in the years that it has been here. If Labour wants more credibility, it must acknowledge the effect of 14 years of austerity.

I also agree on the other effects, such as the pandemic and increased employee costs. All sorts of things have had an impact on the culture sector, as they have on many sectors. Michelle Thomson was right to say that Brexit has had one of the biggest impacts. The committee has heard about the absolute demolition of the careers of many musicians who can no longer tour Europe because of the costs and restrictions involved. Many of them now go under an Irish banner because the Irish are willing to help them to do that. Let us at least acknowledge the hugely damaging impact of Brexit on the culture sector in Scotland. Politicians who do not acknowledge the effect of 14 years of austerity and Brexit have no credibility when they talk about the culture sector.

As a member of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, which has recently reviewed the budget, I can confirm that the committee’s discussions have highlighted the on-going recovery of cultural organisations following the pandemic—although I am not trying to minimise the challenges that they still face.

As somebody who grew up in Edinburgh and spent 30-odd years here, I would say that I am very much a supporter of all the festivals, but we have to remember that there are other parts of Scotland—and that does not just mean Glasgow; it does not just mean either Glasgow or Edinburgh, or either the Highlands or the Lowlands.

My area is Stirling and Clackmannanshire. We have to ensure that we have a cultural presence, too. Mention has not been made of the Macrobert Arts Centre in Stirling, in my constituency. It is an invaluable cultural asset, as is the Smith Art Gallery and Museum, which is in Evelyn Tweed’s constituency. If any members doubt that those are cultural assets, they should think about the oldest football in the world, which was discovered in the area. It went to Hamburg for the world cup a few years ago, and it was piped on at the very first match, even though Scotland was, unfortunately, not represented in that world cup.

There is no doubt that we all have cultural assets in our communities, and many people will be very pleased about the proposed increase in the budget that the Government has announced. They will also understand—even if some people in the chamber do not—that the UK Government’s austerity cuts have had a profound impact on funding for culture over many years. Despite that, the Scottish Government has maintained increases in culture budgets, albeit that those increases have, I acknowledge, sometimes been minimal.

There is a lot to be very pleased about in the budget, and I hope that the committee will finish its work in scrutinising the Scottish Government’s proposals. I hope that the members of other parties who profess to support culture and the arts will support the Scottish Government’s budget, which proposes such a large increase.

Will the member give way?

The economy is a very good area to focus on. Perhaps one of the issues over the years has been the eagerness to set targets, outcomes or elements of the national performance framework that the Scottish Government will never have it in its gift to deliver alone but will be a joint effort with others. If there was a mutual understanding of the responsibilities for and inputs to the economy and, between Westminster and Scotland, our targets for the economy, we would be more likely to get a meaningful outcome and the accountability that should go with that.

I agree with Mr Mountain, and I will be interested to see the results of the consultation.

The last point that I will make is that, whatever we agree in this Parliament, individual parties in this Parliament can take action themselves.

In 2020, my party decided that we would have no dual mandates, so that nobody who was an MP would stand for election to this Parliament. We did that ahead of this legislation. Therefore, unlike Graham Simpson, we have been against dual mandates for some time. However, whatever legislation is passed in this Parliament, it will remain the case that individual parties will be able to make rules for themselves.