���˿���

Mr Bibby probably knows that I spent most of my professional life as a member of the National Union of Journalists, but that is not the only relevant union in this regard. I have also had regular meetings with Bectu and other trade unions on issues such as the decision to end “River City”, and I will absolutely have meetings with them about any potential job losses at STV.

The Scottish Library and Information Council’s idea is a very interesting example of new thinking about what cultural organisations—libraries, in its case, but potentially other types of venues—can offer as hubs for communities to access a range of services and opportunities.

That goes back to the question that was asked at the beginning of our evidence session about access to, for example, health and wellbeing cultural provision. I think that there is definitely something in all that. Earlier this year, in Falkirk, I saw a fantastic library which was, in effect, the community hub where the pensioners’ group and the book readers group met, and that also had a children’s play and reading area. There was much more than what one might traditionally have understood a library to house.

SLIC’s idea of a culture and wellbeing fund is to help libraries to offer more than they have done up until now and, as a result, allow them to maintain the numbers of people who are going to use them. One of the challenges for libraries is that, as many more of us are accessing books online and do not need to go to libraries in a way that we needed to in the past, they need to reimagine how they offer themselves and their space.

There is definitely something in the suggestion, and it is part of the answer to the cross-portfolio culture and wellbeing offering that we discuss with great regularity in this committee. That is one of the strongest aspects when it comes to delivering our aspirations.

I am happy to answer that question, convener. I have some words prepared, which I can read if that would be agreeable to the committee—or, because of the time, would you prefer me to get straight into answering your questions? I am happy to follow your lead, as you know what would be more useful for the committee.

I suspect that the words that I have prepared are not as succinct as you might wish, so why not just press on?

I will come to the specific question from Mr Kerr in a second. Historic Environment Scotland is in a period of transition as we speak. Mr Kerr knows that I was able to confirm the appointment of Sir Mark Jones as the incoming chair of Historic Environment Scotland. Many people in the committee will know Sir Mark, and I am delighted that he is taking on the role. As Mr Kerr and other members of the committee are aware, there are on-going issues in Historic Environment Scotland, particularly management-related issues. In acknowledging that, I am keen to highlight the general work that Historic Environment Scotland does and my satisfaction with that.

Having said that, I think that there are a number of reasons to have concerns about the management and governance in Historic Environment Scotland. Therefore, not only was I pleased to appoint Sir Mark; I have met him to discuss those issues and to give him the maximum confidence that I would wish him to have in addressing the specific issue that Mr Kerr raises, as well as others, and in ensuring that Historic Environment Scotland can continue its good work—with confidence that the leadership, both through the board and in the senior management team, is exactly what it should be.

I have not seen a final conclusion of any report about the incident that Mr Kerr raises, but he will appreciate that I am taking a very close interest in that and in other issues. There is a general understanding outside the committee that issues are being raised directly with members of the Scottish Parliament, with me and with the civil service. All of that will be shared with the incoming chair of the board, and I have a very high degree of confidence that he will take all those matters seriously.

I say all of that with the caveat, from my previous answer, that I am very mindful of the arm’s-length relationship between Government and public bodies such as Historic Environment Scotland, which is why I have such confidence in Sir Mark taking up his role. He must be able to get on with his responsibilities as the chair of the board. He has a long-standing working relationship with the chief executive of Historic Environment Scotland, Katerina Brown, and I am optimistic that they will form a formidable team. I look forward to hearing more about that in the weeks and months ahead.

Yes, absolutely.

Absolutely.

That is understood. I have made it absolutely and unambiguously clear to the committee that I agree that there is a wide range of issues of concern relating to the senior management of Historic Environment Scotland. They cause me extreme concern, and I expect to learn what the consequences of those cases are. Some relate to matters that are subject to on-going internal human resource processes, and I await the conclusion of them. I also believe that those issues will be fully attended to by the incoming chair of Historic Environment Scotland, Sir Mark Jones. I have total confidence in his ability and willingness to deal with the issue. We all share an interest in the focus of Historic Environment Scotland’s efforts being on the tremendous job that it does throughout Scotland.

If this part of the evidence session is drawing to a close because we are moving on to other subjects, I want to take the opportunity to assure Mr Bibby and other colleagues that, if you, convener, wish me to come back at an appropriate time, I am content to do so. Echoing an earlier answer, I would wish all members of the committee—and, through them, other members of the Parliament who have raised issues with me directly, even this week—to have confidence, through transparency, that the outstanding matters of concern that have been raised with us directly, through the media or through reports that we have been sent have all been dealt with.

I would be happy if my colleague Joanna Keating wanted to come in at this stage.

I think that I am right in saying that the most recent pooled aid package towards which we contributed was from April of this year, so not long ago. Ms Keating might have better information than I do, but I imagine that, because of the restrictions on Gaza, parts of that aid package might well not yet have been distributed.

Convener, this is the last committee appearance by Mr Stewart, who has been a tremendous deputy convener of the committee. I am saying all that after he has asked his question, so I cannot be accused of buttering him up before he asks it. I wish him well on the next committee that he takes part in.

First, I will talk about assurance issues. In relation to UNRWA, Mr Stewart will know that an extensive report was compiled by Ambassador Colonna, whom he might have met, because she was the French ambassador to the United Kingdom before she became the foreign minister of France. She pulled together a report that has given the international community the confidence to reinstate its primary support for Gaza through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.

That is really good because, where there have been issues—and it is a matter of record that there have been issues—as far as it is possible to ascertain through trusted investigations, such as the Colonna report, we are talking about a very small minority of individuals and a very small number of cases. It is really important that we do not allow such cases to distract us from the scale of the tragedy that is taking place in Gaza and the need for us to work with trusted colleagues. The committee has had evidence on that—Mr Stewart was perhaps not at the session, but if he were, he will have heard Salah Saeed, the Disasters Emergency Committee member, saying the following:

“We have well-established processes to screen, identify and triangulate who we are working with on the ground, and the member charities on the ground have years and decades of expertise. There are international lists that people can cross-reference and, generally speaking, DEC organisations are dealing with international organisations that are helping to import and deliver food. In this kind of crisis it is the UN organisations that deliver food and fill the warehouses, which are then passed on to the international NGOs and local organisations.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 22 May 2025; c 12.]

It is part and parcel of the work of donor countries and aid organisations to ensure that the aid funding that has been provided goes to the intended recipients.

The challenge in Gaza is not unique, but it is an extreme example of a civilian population, in effect, being held prisoner, with people unable to leave, by an occupying power that is conducting very heavy military operations that have, frankly, flattened a significant part of the territory, killed tens of thousands of people and left the civilian population unable to feed itself. In those circumstances, we must support organisations that have experience of providing support. At present, there is a privatised and militarised operation that is not neutral—it is operated by the Israelis and the Americans—which is why the United Nations is not working with them. That operation has killed hundreds of people who were queuing for food. That is intolerable.

We have to help in so far as we are able to, and we are doing that through the humanitarian aid that we have provided. We understand our limits, but we are using our voice to say that what is happening is not acceptable. We have to hope that a ceasefire will come about and that humanitarian aid will be allowed back into Gaza.

Frankly, there is a bigger picture than is posed by Mr Stewart’s question, but I want to give him as much assurance as I can on aid and on the safeguards that are in place in relation to who is involved in the operations of proceedings. I acknowledge that Gaza’s civil infrastructure is being operated by a terrorist organisation, which is what Hamas is. However, that does not detract from the suffering of the civilian population or the targeting of the civilian population and civilian areas, including hospitals. None of that is acceptable. The international community has called that out repeatedly, and it must stop as soon as possible.