���˿���

Yes—while being mindful of the constraints that we have.

I also want to ask about the decision that was captured in last year’s report to diverge from the EU in relation to building standards for electric vehicle car parking. Is any kind of backward look taken at such decisions? That decision was made, but is there a point at which you go back and ask whether it is working, what sort of progress we are seeing in the EU with the roll-out of electric vehicle charging in public car parks and whether we should reconsider the decision? Is it the case that, once we have made a decision, we have diverged, thanks very much, or is there a point at which we go back and ask whether, in terms of keeping pace, that was the right decision? Is there a policy impact in that?

Okay—it is noted.

I have a final question. The committee recently went to Ireland, where we heard about a lot of the cultural work that the Irish state does to connect with its diaspora. Are artists and workers who have a family connection to Ireland applying for Irish passports? Is that a workaround to enable greater access to Europe?

On your comment about what the committee would like to see more of, cabinet secretary, I do welcome the improvements that have been made to the report this year, but I note the useful table in annex C, which gives the title of the relevant European law, the subject issue at stake and the Scottish Government’s current alignment consideration. Under the final heading, there are a number of statements, with issues “under active consideration”, proposals “under development” and so on. There is some indication of the direction of travel, but the table does not really say exactly where we are in the policy process.

Perhaps I can take, as an example, the nature restoration law that is coming at European level and which will establish “legally binding ... targets”. The table says that the proposal is “under development” in Scotland, but we know that it will probably be wrapped into the environment bill. To what extent can we get more clarity on that sort of thing?

Part of the context of my question is the issue of common frameworks, which have arisen with regard to the deposit return scheme, and there is also a transparency issue. I feel, therefore, that there might be a bit more granularity to be had in the conversation across the UK. For example, are there any implications arising from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020?

I wonder whether, beyond a general statement of “Yes, we broadly agree with this, and we are working on something”, more could be put under that heading to show the Government’s workings with regard to where we are at the moment with alignment and what a committee—whether this one or another—should be looking out for.

I am interested in your campaign for a cultural touring agreement. Alice Black just spoke about the TCA review in 2026 and what discussions there can be ahead of that. Are there other sectors that link in with touring companies and musicians and that are facing similar issues, so that there is potential for you to work together? I am thinking about the screen industry as part of the cultural ecology. Are workers in the screen and other cultural sectors coming up against similar problems? How might you build a case from there?

I think that slightly more granular information would be good, because many of the boxes just say “Subject to future consideration”. What does that mean? For example, if something was related to programme for government commitments or a particular common framework, it might be useful to signpost it.

Thanks for explaining the complexity and, I think, the fluidity of the relations.

I want to go back to Quebec, Professor Paquin, and ask you about the position of Quebec in relation to the Arctic. Quebec obviously has a footprint in the Arctic as well as covering subarctic areas. How does Quebec engage with the increasingly difficult politics in the Arctic Circle, particularly now, given the position of Russia? I think I heard recently that Quebec has been going to Nordic Council meetings as an observer, and I am interested in how you engage with the Arctic Council.

Are there links between provincial assemblies as well—not just the Governments but parliamentarians and assembly members?

Quebec is part of La Francophonie: does that bring specific advantages in trade? You already mentioned immigration. French-speaking peoples from around the world may be attracted to come to Quebec, but are there wider cultural and trade advantages? Have structures been set up that are in some way similar to the UK Commonwealth that can help French-speaking regions and nations around the world to develop?

I am interested to hear more about how the provinces in Canada work together and what the formal structures are for that and then to hear from Professor Cornago about how the Basque Country and Catalonia work together within Spain. I was struck by the experience in Germany where, I think, they have more of a formal structure—the Bundesrat—which allows the Länder to come together and reach joint positions. Notwithstanding what Professor Paquin said about policy differences between some of the provinces over energy, for instance, I am interested in how that shared interest is codified and what the structures are for joint working.