Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much.

It is all very helpful. Does anyone else want to come in?

Good morning to the cabinet secretary. I agree with your comments at the start of your statement about the work that the committee and its clerks have done with the EU law tracker and so on. It is worth making the observation that we are talking about Scottish Government policy, and the committee’s correct role is to scrutinise that. The Scottish Government should lead the way in the work on tracking EU law and so on, and the committee should react to that. There is a slight sense that that has previously been the wrong way round. We are beginning to correct that, but I put the observation on the record and will welcome any observations that you have on it in a moment.

I ask specifically about a point that was made in Dr Whitten’s report, which we wrote to you about on 14 September, asking for your response. I may be wrong, but I do not think that the annual report covers changes in tertiary EU law or measures that are contained in the 15 primary UK acts that make provisions in areas that were previously within EU competence as well as provisions that have otherwise arisen because of UK withdrawal from the EU. Is it possible, either now or at a later date, for you or your officials to give an update on those two points?

That is entirely fair enough. However, it is quite interesting just as an example of where Scotland is diverging from the rest of the UK and, arguably, what the EU is doing. That specific example is fascinating.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a member of the Faculty of Advocates. I entirely agree with the cabinet secretary’s position. It is important that the SSI is approved. Can I ask why, if it possible to answer, the issue has arisen? Was there an oversight or did something slip through the net? I do not say that critically, because I know that such things often happen.

That is very helpful indeed.

I have a specific question about gene editing. I do not want to get into the pros and cons of gene editing; I do not think that it is appropriate for this committee to do that, and I should also refer to my entry in the register of interests in relation to farming and crofting. However, gene editing is an interesting area, because it is potentially an area on which Scotland could find itself as a bit of an outlier, given that the UK Parliament and the EU have legislated to an extent to allow gene editing, and the Scottish Government has been opposed to it. In your report, you note that you are now looking carefully at what the EU is doing. What is the Scottish Government’s current position on gene editing?

I think that I am right in saying that the First Minister said in his statement to Parliament that the Scottish Government stands ready to welcome refugees from the region. Does the cabinet secretary have any further detail on what preparations are being made here? Secondly, what lessons have been learned from the experience over the past few years of the Ukrainian situation—the parliamentary scrutiny of which the committee was heavily involved in—that could be applied to any refugees who arrive in Scotland from the region?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I acknowledge your earlier statement and your unequivocal condemnation of the terrorist attacks that were carried out by Hamas. However, I want to ask about the situation in Scotland. I think that it was Monday when the Prime Minister chaired an emergency meeting of COBRA in response to concerns that the conflict might increase the terror threat in the UK. To the extent that you can say, have you had discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs or Police Scotland about any increased terror threat in Scotland?

On that, it is fair to say—I think that you acknowledged this in your statement—that both Jewish and Muslim communities in Scotland will be feeling particularly vulnerable. If I could ask for a bit more detail, what in particular is the Scottish Government doing to support them?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I do not need to tell you how fragile the culture sector is in Scotland, and for lots of reasons. Last year, the committee’s report described what was then a “perfect storm”—I think that those were the words that we used. The evidence that the committee has heard since then—and particularly in the past month—has been stark and almost universal in its description of the anxiety that those in the sector feel.

One person who gave evidence to us was Liam Sinclair of the Federation of Scottish Theatre. I will read what he told us at length—and I apologise for doing so. He said:

“A material issue since the last time the committee took evidence ahead of the budget relates to the journey through the Parliament that the Scottish Government took the culture budget on last year. It would be difficult to overstate the erosion of faith and trust among our members that resulted from that journey. The culture budget was cut—albeit that funding was reinstated—which left people feeling less clear than they should have been about the vision under which we are all operating for the delivery of cultural services in Scotland.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 21 September 2023; c 6-7.]

That evidence was given before the events of last week. Can you understand that people rightly view this as a promise made and then broken? Also, can you understand the irreparable damage that the decision has done to trust in the Scottish Government, before we even get to the financial impact?