Chamber and committees

Professor Pittock made some points about culture and education. How do you see those fitting into the priorities in the Scottish Government’s work on international development?

Thank you for those very useful comments. How do the four development partner countries fit into that strategy, given that the priority in that respect might be climate support, particularly post-COP26, and support for civic groups, which was an issue that was raised by the groups from Malawi?

Dr Marks, do you wish to comment on priorities and how we can have an effective strategic approach? In that respect, I am thinking not just of the European connection but of connection to the rest of the world. How do the four partner countries fit in there?

I am very keen to follow up the written comments that we have received from lots of organisations about the Scottish Government’s international development strategy. This morning, the witnesses have picked up on the need for the Government to be more coherent and strategic. I am keen to get your views on what the priorities should be.

The EU is important economically and culturally, given our historical relations; it is also important to international trade. How do we prioritise across the range of issues that you have all mentioned, whether that be soft power, culture or our economic interests? There is also the challenge of acting on climate change, following the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and in relation to human rights, which Kirsty Hughes has just mentioned.

What more needs to be done by the Scottish Government to focus on the priorities, given the relatively limited resources in the overall budget? I will come to Kirsty Hughes first.

I want to follow up the question that Maurice Golden asked earlier about interparliamentary work and transparency. Dr Marks, you commented on the need for greater transparency and accountability in interparliamentary relations. What should the Scottish Parliament’s priorities be in developing those relations? Federal exemplars were mentioned earlier, and soft power comes up all the time, but I am thinking of common interests post-COP and particularly the need for our committee to understand where the EU is going and the Scottish Government’s aspirations to keep pace with it. What is your advice about where the committee should start to make recommendations to our parliamentary colleagues?

—because, as well as enabling you to draw on that expertise, that would address the issue of transparency, the importance of which came across strongly in the evidence to us.

Such engagement helps you as a Government, it helps the organisations in question and, if we are kept up to speed with that, it helps us with our parliamentary scrutiny.

Thank you, cabinet secretary, but I asked two specific questions, and it would be good to get your feedback on both of them. The first was on the suggestion about a website in which everything is made very transparent and that makes it clear where you intend to align, where you do not intend to do so, and where you are thinking about it to ensure that the range of different interest groups from civic society, the third sector, businesses and COSLA can see what is coming next.

I also asked about ministerial working groups that are responsible not just for on-going monitoring but for planning ahead. In that respect, I am interested in hearing about what is happening not just internally in the Scottish Government but with other devolved Governments as well as with the UK Government.

Where you cover the deposit return scheme and minimum unit pricing, you also mention the issue of potential legal challenges. Will you say more about that?

Is your issue then not about water quality and the regulation of it but about the supply of water? I am just trying to clarify.