—its justice and education systems and the environment to enhance our country, rather than squandering those powers.

I am happy to do so.

I thank my colleague Stephen Kerr for that intervention. This afternoon, it very much appears that the Labour Party wishes to repeal the internal market act without having anything to replace it.

I will do so in a few moments, as I wish to make some more progress.

This afternoon, we have heard from the Government about prioritising the powers of the Scottish Parliament. However, for the SNP, protecting the Parliament’s powers means objecting to UK Government investment in Scotland just because the money is being spent in devolved areas.

I am happy to give way to the minister.

I thank the member for her lengthy intervention, but none of us is tone deaf to the issue. The United Kingdom as a whole made the decision to leave the European Union. At the end of the day, the SNP has never come to terms with that. Yes, SNP members have made the point that Scotland did not like it, but the United Kingdom did and the United Kingdom is still the United Kingdom at the moment.

The motion also does not mention the fact that, despite the Supreme Court judgment having been made two years ago, it is only this week that we have learned the timetable for the reconsideration stage of the bill. When a party deliberately exceeds the power of this Parliament and then fails to use the powers of this Parliament to fix things as quickly as possible, it really lacks credibility.

I will talk about some of the points that have been made by other members. As I said, Labour members talked about repealing the 2020 act, and we look forward to seeing how that progresses in the future.

My colleague Donald Cameron said that this debate is more about deflecting from where we are, and he said that people across the country want the United Kingdom Government and the Holyrood Government to work together. They want to see a stronger relationship and trade taking place. Those points are very valid. He also said that, although, in the past, funding came from the EU, there is no suggestion that the funding that now comes from the UK is any different. The UK has provided £2.4 billion to Scotland over the past few years.

Willie Rennie made some very valid points about respecting the authority of this Parliament. He gave a very good example relating to freedom of information that exposed the SNP as following rules only when it suits it. We have debates that do nothing more than cause controversy and that do not show respect to the Parliament.

My colleague Stephen Kerr made a powerful speech. He talked about the scrutiny that is not taking place, and he said that there should be milestones and better governance.

My colleague Jackson Carlaw talked about being fair minded. It was quite hard for him to find evidence of fair mindedness in the chamber—he might well be fair minded, but we have not had much fair mindedness today.

Labour members then made comments about how Labour would manage or repeal the 2020 act—we look forward to seeing where that takes us in future.

We have already heard much about the Sewel convention this afternoon, but I think that Jackson Carlaw put it best when he said that the convention is just that—it is nothing more than a convention.

Of course, the SNP’s objections come despite the fact that the UK Government’s ability to make investment in devolved areas is very much part of the devolution settlement. Similarly, we have heard familiar complaints about the UK Government’s use of a section 35 order, despite the fact that such a power is written into the devolution settlement.

However, certain things are absent from today’s motion. For example, there is no mention of the Supreme Court’s damning verdict in 2021 on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill, which talked about the SNP deliberately exceeding the powers of the Scottish Parliament when drawing up the bill.

£6.6 million is a considerable amount of money, and you have explained the funding process, Mr Munro. Thank you for that. The shock waves that you and the sector must have experienced when that decision was reversed and you found out that you were losing that money must have been considerable.

I commend you for at least managing to fill the gap; not filling it would have been a death knell to some of the sector, and you have identified that. Does it feel as though the sector is under attack, that it is expendable and that the Government does not see it as a priority? That appears to be the message that is being transmitted to your sector.

You talked about your sector’s success, which is to be commended, but how do you measure success when something such as this is thrown at you? It affects economic growth and the development of the sector. How can the sector progress when it is put in this life-or-death situation? You either survive or you do not, and if you had not put that money into the sector, some of the organisations would no longer exist by the end of this financial year.

You have made it very clear that the sector is in distress—we heard as much last week and from our guests in the previous session—and the reputation of the organisations that you represent is at risk and continues to be so. However, you have all been extremely and inherently innovative in managing the crises that you have faced, and your sector has diversified its income generation and its processes.

That said, there is still a mismatch between what you are trying to do and what the Government is saying and doing. Last week, I asked about the working groups, the strategies and the action plans that are in place, and I asked whether you were being listened to. I am sure that you are—indeed, I was told by the groups last week that you are—but you are being listened to at a time when one of your hands has been tied behind your back. Indeed, after recent events, it appears that both of your hands are tied behind your back.

We need to engage with how we go forward. We all want a long-term strategic approach, because we know that the sector brings in over £5 billion a year through its thousands of organisations and its tens of thousands of employees. They are at risk if you are at risk—and, at the moment, you are at risk. Where do you go in the future? How do your organisations attempt to recruit development roles for the future and, indeed, see that development happen? At the moment, you are stagnating and are living from hand to mouth. You all want to achieve—and you are all achieving. All of your organisations are punching above their weight—we get that—but the issue is the strategy that is required. There needs to be much more co-operation, which will mean understanding and respect. After all, without that respect, confidence in the culture sector will continue to be eroded. In fact, that confidence is being eroded every day—I can see that, and I know that you all feel it, too. It is about where we take the long-term strategic approach and how you develop the recruitment and development role to give yourselves a chance for the future.

You probably heard at last week’s meeting the talk about how Scotland “gets it” when it comes to culture. My stark review of what has been said is that Scotland does not get it, if this is how Creative Scotland is treated by the Government of the day.

The sector has bent over backwards to accommodate, be supportive and take on board many things, and it has been, and continues to be, innovative. It punches above its weight—we discussed that last week, as well—but it cannot maintain, sustain and retain if it does not know where things are going. It is quite obvious that, at the moment, the route plan is not available to your organisation or to the sector. How can you plan and progress if you do not have that?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My phone seems to have stalled. I would have voted yes.