Access to a digital connection is a crucial issue for people on low incomes and for older people, who might not have access to that. It is important that that is prioritised.

The two of you have spoken very eloquently about the short-term crisis, but thinking about this year’s budget, I note that there are, as you have highlighted, issues with venues as well as performers and all the staff needed to put on performances. Having met organisations such as Culture Counts and the Night Time Industries Association, I know that they are all very focused on what has to be done next. What are your thoughts on that? The issue of school tuition relates to local authority funding, for example. Does something need to be done about how employment is structured if we are to attract people into the industry or ensure that people stay in it?

Moreover, what about the debate over the percentage of funding for the arts? I see from one of our briefings that the Scottish Government spends 0.2 per cent on culture. Do we need to change how money is spent, and do we need to invest more? I would be interested in hearing both witnesses’ views on that.

What is the impact on your future role of that shift and people’s opting out and moving to private sector online streaming services, for example? What will the impact of that be on the BBC? It is hugely important with regard to accessibility. As I mentioned, the viewing habits of younger people, in particular, and perhaps older people as well—not to get into the detail of the licence fee—is an important issue with regard to cost and accessibility.

That was really helpful. In relation to longer-term planning, certain types of cultural performances move around the country, so venues will be thinking about not just this year but the next two years. The point about the public sector needing to think about longer-term funding, whether it be for three years or five years, was very well made, and the committee will reflect on that.

I will ask two questions, one of each witness. The first question follows up on the issue of commissioning the programmes in Scotland. Steve Carson talked a bit about rebooting after coming through the pandemic. You have different types of new projects, such as drama, comedy and factual content. Can you give us the numbers as well as a sense of how you are retaining and increasing employment opportunities not just for actors but for all the staff who are involved in making new content?

Over the years to come, is there scope for increasing the number of new productions in Scotland?

Yes. It would be useful to get a sense of job numbers as well. Maybe you could write to us with those numbers after the meeting.

I have a different question for Leigh Tavaziva, about what the BBC is doing to address the challenges for different types of broadcasting, particularly the important role of public sector broadcasting, given that viewing figures for private online streaming services have rocketed during the pandemic. What consideration are you giving to accessibility and different ways of accessing BBC products? I am thinking of younger and older people in relation to the costs of accessing services through connectivity and broadband. What is being done about that at the UK BBC level?

Let us make this session of Parliament successful. Let us not pull our country apart. Let us work together, because even the SNP supporters of independence have warned about the decades that it would take to recover from leaving the UK and about the fact that it would be 10 times worse than Brexit. Let us think about that.

Let us focus on what the Parliament was set up to deliver.

It has been an interesting debate. Scottish Labour will welcome some elements of the programme for government, but we want to be a constructive Opposition party, so where we think that the Scottish Government is getting it wrong or not going far enough, we will hold the Government to account and suggest the alternative routes that it needs to take.

For example, we will support Anne’s law and the pardon for miners, which is long overdue. We will also support the principle of a good food nation, but I ask the Scottish Government to look at the work that my former colleague Elaine Smith and my current colleague Rhoda Grant have done, because it is not the headlines that matter but the detail, the ambition and the delivery.

In that spirit, I also welcome the commitment to build a new Edinburgh eye pavilion, which was a major election issue that became a cross-party issue. I am glad to see that that commitment is included in the programme for government, but it was only a one-liner. We want to know the details; we want to know that it will be properly funded by the Scottish Government and we want a timescale for the new building, because the old building is not fit for purpose and NHS Lothian has had plans to replace it for years.

It is not enough to make headline announcements, though, because we need legislation that will make the differences that our constituents need. The national care service is a case in point, because the funding will be vital in ensuring that it delivers. In the previous session of Parliament, we saw patients stuck in hospital without the opportunity to access care and step-down care, and there have been years of underinvestment in care and adaptations to people’s homes.

In addition, a top priority has to be reinvestment to ensure that we keep people who work hard as care workers, and who have been through difficult circumstances during the pandemic, supporting their families and the families with whom they work. That is why Jackie Baillie’s campaign, which the Scottish Labour Party strongly supports, for increased pay and national terms and conditions for all our care workers is vital. Those are the first actions that are needed; we want a detailed commitment to the value of our care workers and to ensuring that they can develop their skills.

We must also ensure that we reverse the increases that we have seen recently in delayed discharges. Those numbers rising again is bad news for patients and their families and it reinforces the need for wider care in our communities, which requires proper local planning. We do not want a centralised national care service; we want our councils to be funded and empowered to work together so that the future demand that will need to be addressed will be met. We want to see, for example, a reversing of the cuts in Edinburgh. At a time when we are seeing an increase in delayed discharges, we also see the proposal to close council care homes without proper analyses of what is needed and of people’s future needs and demands.

I am keen to hear in the Government’s closing speech how the £800 million that the First Minister has promised will be spent to make sure that the transformation in care that we need across the country happens—not just in payments for care homes and care staff, but in support for unpaid carers.

Mark Griffin rightly highlighted the need to invest in local councils so that they can deliver the investment in community services on which people rely, whether that is schools or the new housing that is needed.

It was so fascinating to hear the First Minister offer £1.5 million for libraries across Scotland, especially given the proposed cuts in her own city. Our arts and culture services are vital to the wellbeing of our recovery across Scotland. We need to invest in those services.

There is irony in the Scottish Government’s putting centre stage the demand for more powers for itself while centralising the powers of local councils. Some 14 years on from the promise to scrap what the SNP described as the “unfair council tax”, we have seen zero progress on that promise, even when there has been cross-party willingness to work with the Government to come up with better solutions to enable our councils to be properly funded. We still have no idea what the Government will propose. Again, more work needs to be done.

Pam Duncan-Glancy and Anas Sarwar spoke passionately about the need to tackle child poverty. Even with today’s announcement, children will still be living in poverty—a situation that will be exacerbated by the UK Tory Government’s dangerous cut to universal credit. We need to be clear that the pandemic has pushed our country backwards and has put people on low incomes under even more pressure.

We need to ensure that our students get a comeback plan and we need the long-awaited action on the education attainment gap to be delivered. We need new teachers to be given not just short-term commitments to appointment, but the promise of careers, with on-going support for our schools and eradication of the inequalities that our schoolchildren experience.

On poverty, it was disappointing not to hear any reference to fuel poverty in the First Minister’s statement. Fuel is another example of where the cost of living is rising. The cost of energy is rising. Mark Ruskell made important points about the importance of investing in existing homes, but there must be a joined-up strategy to invest in our communities, eradicate fuel poverty, create new jobs and create new incomes for our communities. Again, I was disappointed not to hear anything about development of community-based and community-owned heat and power networks and companies, which would not just enable the transition to low-carbon heat and power, but would reinvest the profits and create jobs in our communities.

We need to make sure that it is not a top-down plan for our country. There needs to be investment in our communities, led by our communities. There needs to be a partnership of respect between the Scottish Government and councils. That is long overdue. We did not get that in the previous parliamentary session, so it is vital that we get it in the current one.

There is irony in hearing discussion about the journey to independence when we still face major problems in the run-up to COP26. I very much welcome the First Minister’s commitment to investing in active travel. That necessary investment must be in safe dedicated routes, so that the parents of the young children who will be getting free bikes will not worry about them using those bikes. That means that we need to invest not just in existing roads, which have deteriorated in quality, with councils cutting spend on potholes, but in new dedicated routes.

Today, just as we sat down for the debate, there was irony in hearing the Minister for Transport justify cuts in ScotRail services. At a time when we want people to get into using trains, with more choice and not having to use their cars, we will see train services being removed. I know people who will have to shift from travelling by train to travelling by cars, because their community will no longer have a service that they can use. How can that make sense when we are trying to have a just transition?

If we consider buses, the situation is worse. The cuts have been going on for years. We have been losing buses; during the previous parliamentary session, bus services were reduced. Therefore, although I welcome the increase in free bus travel, including for young people, we need services that every bus user is encouraged to use, because doing so is free. We support more people getting access—everybody needs to be able to access the services.

The services need to be there for them, and they need to be locally driven and locally accountable. During the last session of Parliament, we amended the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 to deliver powers that need to be implemented, so that we see more local community-led bus services, like Lothian Buses. That is a success that could be replicated across Scotland.

However, that needs political effort—everyday effort—and that is why it is disappointing to hear that the SNP will be diverting political energy and the work of civil servants from what should be the top priority, which is not just getting through the pandemic but recovering from it and from the steps backward that we have seen on poverty, with people losing their jobs.