Chamber and committees

Indeed.

That is great. I am grateful for those answers.

Accommodation provision had to be identified at record speeds. Some of that provision was temporary. Might we in future be able to arrange for the rapid provision, from the very beginning, of temporary accommodation that is a bit more permanent, rather than having to draft in boats or whatever?

Obviously, I would not ask you to comment on political matters, but it is really interesting how Scotland maximises the brand that Kat talked about. In a sense, we have an advantage that there might not be for elsewhere. It is also fascinating to see people relate to Scotland as an entity in and of itself rather than one that is subsumed within the wider United Kingdom.

What one area would you like to see the committee focus on in terms of an opportunity for Scotland in the coming year? Christopher Thomson has talked about the economy and trade and investment. Is there anything else to add to that? Could you add one sentence on where we should lend our cross-party support to your work?

Unfortunately, I fear that Ukraine and the situation in the middle east will not be the last conflicts in the world. That may be stating the obvious. Scotland has always led the way in offering support and asylum where we can. What have we learned from the response to the need to help house Ukrainians that would inform our response to refugees from Gaza, if we are able to facilitate asylum for them?

Thank you. My question is about some of the other objectives. We are talking about a bill that is called the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill. We have focused extensively on a number of objectives so far, some of which are already in the bill and some of which are not.

I have two questions. The first is on the point about rural communities thriving. Jonnie Hall quoted the cabinet secretary as saying that there was no inherent tension between all the various objectives on biodiversity, climate change and so on. However, looking specifically at enabling rural communities to thrive, do you see any inherent tension between the objectives that are there already and rural communities thriving, or maybe not thriving?

My second question is specific, and I would value a specific answer to it. Inevitably, in a round-table session such as this, everybody will have ideas about the additional objectives that we need. However, if we have too many, we do not have a very focused bill. What is the optimum number of objectives? Is four the right number, or is it too many or too few?

Well, just in terms of tensions—

What about the number of objectives?

I want to touch briefly on that point—that is, the distinction between ring fencing and non-ring fencing. I would assume that the agricultural sector is more interested in what is ring fenced over the next five years, because it provides a basic minimum guarantee. Notwithstanding that future devolved Governments might wish to top that up as additional commitments become available, the real focus would be on ring fencing and extending that as much as possible.

My second point, for the record, is that my understanding with regard to budget movements is that, notwithstanding your understandable concerns, the budget will be returned in subsequent budgets, according to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands. However, again, the point is that you would clearly prefer ring-fenced budgets that ultimately come from the UK Government, so the five-year plan is more important than anything else.