Does the minister support the initiative of Alison McGovern MP to ask Europe for support for visas for the touring industry, so that members of that industry can tour not just in Scotland but in the rest of Europe?

Today’s debate needs to focus on how we address the crisis that many of our constituents are facing because of the impact of a badly thought-through and chaotic Tory Brexit. The Labour amendment proposes removing the final phrase of the SNP coalition Government’s motion. Although we deeply regret leaving the EU, people voted for it, and the SNP knows that many of their supporters also voted to leave the EU. Our amendment therefore starts by recognising that breaking up economic and political unions has deeply damaging consequences, and creating borders has costs.

We have known that Brexit was happening for years, but people have been let down by the Tory Government not thinking through the details of its impact, and not acting to eliminate the challenges for businesses and workers that new rules at borders have created.

People have been let down by a lack of planning, workforce planning and joint working by the Scottish and UK Governments, which has been exacerbated by the pandemic, but many of the shortages of key workers predated the pandemic and Brexit, although those have got worse. We know that, in sectors where pay is low and the conditions are poor or unacceptable, the UK and Scottish Governments have failed to address the issue. Instead, they have turned a blind eye and relied on people from the EU to fill those roles to hide what are systemic issues.

Brexit has highlighted the stark reality of the situation, and it is now time to ensure not only that the wages match the contribution that the people who play those roles make to our society, but that the conditions are fit for the 21st century. We urgently need union engagement in the sectors concerned. We must work across all bodies to ensure that pay and conditions are not just minimally acceptable but attractive.

We support the call for options to enable temporary workers to access our labour markets to help us to get through the next few months as we recover from the pandemic, but that is not enough.

There was absolutely nothing in my speech saying that we supported Brexit. If the minister looks at the numbers, he will see that more than 1 million people in Scotland voted for Brexit. I was not one of them, but I bet a lot of them were SNP supporters.

When Labour was in charge in the Scottish Parliament, we negotiated people having the ability to stay in Scotland after they had graduated from university, so we understand the importance of the Scottish Government having the flexibility to work with the UK Government.

Earlier, at portfolio question time, I mentioned the work that my colleague Alison McGovern is doing, which involves going straight to the EU to stand up for our musicians, our artists and those who work behind the scenes, whose work is among our greatest exports, to make sure that they get the support that they need to stay in employment. We do not want to keep losing talented artists and others who work in the music sector, many of whom have had to leave it and take other jobs to keep going. We need real action and leadership from the parties in government in the UK and Scotland, rather than the usual blame passing that has been evident across the chamber today.

Scotland is a rich country, but those riches are not shared across our country. There is a real irony in an SNP Government not drawing to voters’ attention its independence plans while decrying the impact of a Brexit that many of its members voted for. The SNP knows that independence would lead to austerity, that it would threaten even more job losses, particularly in our public sector, and that it would be like Brexit times 10. Those are not just my views but those of a former colleague in this chamber, Andrew Wilson, and Professor Mark Blyth.

We need action, not rhetoric, and we need it now. Our constituents need access to fuel and food. We are moving into winter and, for many of our constituents, a lack of Government action here and in the UK will leave them vulnerable. That is why my colleague Anas Sarwar has called for an increase in winter fuel allowance payments, and it is why we have called on the Tories to abandon their universal credit cuts.

Our amendment calls on the Tory Government and the SNP coalition Government to work together, instead of constantly inventing constitutional stand-offs, in which they blame each other for their lack of action. The people of Scotland deserve better. They need action now to invest in jobs and training in the key sectors where we have labour shortages and to provide workers in those sectors with decent terms and conditions. Workers in the care sector should get a minimum of £15 an hour and be given support to develop career options, and Scottish Government contracts should be used to prevent people from ending up in precarious employment.

The Scottish Government needs to focus on the day job, to plan for the long term and to step up and secure investment in jobs that will allow us to develop the low-carbon economy that we need now, not in 2045. We need a recovery-from-the-pandemic strategy that puts the needs of the most vulnerable first. The debate should be about how we use the powers that we have to bring that about now.

I move amendment S6M-01444.3, to leave out “by a UK Government that they did not elect.” and insert:

“; recognises that breaking up economic and political unions has deeply damaging consequences, and creating borders has costs; believes that people have been let down by a lack of planning and joint working by both the Scottish and UK governments, and calls on the Scottish and UK governments to act together to resolve the shortage of workers in key sectors of the economy and ensure that people have access to employment opportunities, training and financial support as Scotland comes through the COVID-19 pandemic and rebuilds its communities.”

It has been good to hear about the issue of getting more people to access the arts. The Museums Galleries Scotland submission highlights the commitment to everybody having a right to culture, and suggests the concept of a minimum acceptable standard of cultural provision.

We have a lot of fantastic museums, but the focus is on preserving them, rather than promoting access, and a minimum standard could address that issue, although funding them might be challenging. Perhaps you could say a bit about that, because it is an interesting idea that might promote the joining up of portfolios that we have just been talking about.

Would your priority be to have more multiyear funding for the theatre sector? One issue that has been raised with us is around community access and access to existing facilities. Are you considering that in relation to longer-term funding, as well as in relation to the community impact that such funding would have by supporting people to be in employment?

I have a follow-up question for Mr Munro about what the transformational difference would be. As you say, it is currently about getting through Covid. Your submission is powerful, stating that

“Scotland’s Creative Industries contribute £4.6bn to the Scottish economy each year, supporting 90,000 jobs”.

What is the priority in upping the investment that you put in? We have heard a lot about training, and issues around investment in buildings, not just to get through Covid but because a lot of our venues and theatres are quite old. What additional funding do we need, not only to keep things going but to invest in the buildings and the people that we need in our communities to ensure that the sector is with us in the future?

That is helpful. You commented in your submission about the need for investment in training for new entrants to the sector from the Scottish Government as a response to Covid. Last week, the committee heard lots of evidence from freelancers. I want to open the question to the other witnesses about the changes that could be made now. First, I would like to hear briefly from PACT and then, I hope, from Fiona Sturgeon Shea of the Federation of Scottish Theatre about how theatres and venues could support freelancers through longer-term contracts.

Two weeks ago, we took evidence from representatives of the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Communications and Theatre Union and the Musicians Union. It is particularly worried about freelancers and the issue of venues and theatres being unable to put on productions in the way that they have done in the past. Do you have a comment on that, perhaps in contrast to PACT, which is saying that there are lots of job opportunities in its sector? We heard that, in your sector, people are losing out and that there is perhaps a need to change how productions are commissioned.

My question follows on from the one about multiyear funding—although it is also about the level of funding—and is for Creative Scotland. The written evidence that we have received from the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and the Accounts Commission highlights the extent to which culture funding has been cut. The large number of charities that deliver cultural services at local level have been very badly hit during the pandemic. The Accounts Commission highlights the extent to which culture has borne the brunt of service cuts in recent years. Are we underfunding the culture sector? We have had lots of great evidence about jobs, the sector’s impact in the community and cultural wellbeing.

Festivals Scotland told us that its members have had in effect a 25 per cent cut over the past decade. Have we been underfunding the sector generally, even before the pandemic? I think that Creative Scotland’s budget is 0.2 per cent of the total Scottish budget. Do you have any comments on not just multiyear funding but the level of funding? Are we even at the races? Is the level too low?