I have written to the Foreign Secretary to ask him to withdraw that guidance, which will damage Scotland’s interests and undermines devolution. More than two weeks later, I have yet to receive a reply, which says everything about the disrespect that the UK Government has shown thus far.

Despite what those documents assert, nothing in the Scotland Act 1998 precludes Scottish ministers from discussing any issue with other Governments or international organisations. On that basis, I had a successful visit to Vienna this week, promoting Scotland’s energy and space sectors, our commitment to human rights and the rule of law and our work to achieve net zero. As ever, I was grateful for the positive and constructive support provided by the FCDO in capital, both from the embassy to Austria and the mission to the United Nations.

As an introduction to my answer to Beatrice Wishart, I say that I am sure that she would recognise that we are fortunate that Creative Scotland funds regularly funded organisations right across Scotland, including in our island communities. That is hugely worth while.

It is important to stress that Creative Scotland’s grant priorities are aimed at supporting culture and the arts throughout Scotland. I know that Creative Scotland is doing a lot of active thinking about how it can give maximum financial assurance to the creative and arts sector on a multi-annual basis so that people are able to plan. That includes plans for performing in different parts of the country, whether that involves people going to Shetland or people from Shetland performing elsewhere in Scotland. I agree with Beatrice Wishart that that is hugely important. I am sure that Creative Scotland will listen closely to the points that she has made, and I am happy to underline them when I next meet Creative Scotland.

The United Kingdom Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is still reckless legislation, despite the sensible change that removes the automatic sunset of retained European Union law at the end of this year.

Vital protections remain at risk, and UK ministers can still act in devolved areas without a requirement for consent from Scottish ministers or from this Parliament. That is unacceptable, and that is why we continue to call for the bill to be withdrawn. We do not have plans to use powers in the bill to alter existing policy, but we continue to assess that as part of our on-going work, including to prevent laws from being lost.

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 radically undermines the devolution settlement in Scotland and was imposed on this Parliament without its consent. We can see the outcome most clearly with the deposit return scheme—the bill that this Parliament passed is now threatened by the 2020 act, placing the whole scheme at risk, including significant industry investment. Regrettably, the UK Government has yet to reach a decision on excluding Scotland’s deposit return scheme from the act.

We have been engaging with the UK Government on this issue for nearly two years now. UK ministers have acknowledged that we have followed the agreed exclusions process. We cannot wait any longer in providing businesses with the clarity that they urgently need. We need a positive decision from the UK Government, and we need it now.

The question that was put relates to retained EU law, and neither the Erasmus scheme nor the Turing scheme fall within the ambit of retained EU law. We will continue to work with partners, including members of the House of Lords, to do everything that we can to mitigate the threat of disaster that the retained EU law bill still poses. We do not know what will be the final outcome of that legislative process.

On the wider question that Pam Duncan-Glancy has asked, I am always happy to answer questions at the appropriate stage about how we can maximise educational co-operation between Scotland and the European Union.

I understand that this is an incredibly worrying time for the culture sector. The Scottish Government continues to provide significant support to the sector. That includes funding to Creative Scotland totalling £35 million for its regularly funded organisations, more than £9 million for youth projects and more than £2 million for festivals. The Scottish Government has committed to maintaining the £22.496 million of funding for the five national performing companies and £3 million for the Victoria and Albert museum in Dundee. The Scottish Government is providing an additional £2.1 million to support increased costs in the national collections, reflecting the high fixed costs that those organisations have.

Culture can play an important role in the recovery from the pandemic. We know that participation in cultural and creative activity supports our wellbeing, not only at individual level but across our communities and for the country as a whole. That is why I am pleased to confirm the on-going support for the cultural sector. In the past year, Creative Scotland has provided £7.73 million in funding to festivals across Scotland, through its regularly funded organisations and through its open fund. In addition, Edinburgh and Glasgow festivals have received £3 million from the expo and place funds.

Another important aspect of our cultural life is our built heritage. This morning, I was delighted to confirm, together with Historic Environment Scotland, the silver city heritage and place programme with Aberdeen City Council. The programme will bring great benefits, particularly in the regeneration of the east side of Union Street, which has high levels of vacancy. I think that that will make a huge difference to people in Aberdeen.

We must remain alive to all possibilities. A lot of effort is going on across the Scottish Government to prepare for the bill continuing as is currently proposed, which would mean that there would be a sunset unless we can find ways to retain EU law in Scots law—we have to understand the complication that some of this involves shared sovereignty. Those are contributing factors in why this is such an unworkable and unacceptable way of dealing with such important legislation, whether one likes individual pieces of legislation or not.

That is why the potential change that we might hear more about, as soon as tomorrow and certainly in the weeks ahead, is that the UK Government is going to put the horse before the cart, to be honest—it will seek to name the laws that it will get rid of, rather than getting rid of everything and working the other way around. If that is how things are going to proceed, that will be a lot more workable. The Scottish Government called on the UK Government to do that before it, once again, drove a coach and horses through the Sewel convention. I hope that common sense will prevail and that the UK Government will make a hugely welcome U-turn.

There is no effective substitute for being part of the European institutions that deal with judicial and legal co-operation. I am pleased to say that the Lord Advocate and other colleagues in our legal services attend events that they can attend in order to find ways in which our legal system can maintain the highest level of judicial co-operation, albeit in an imperfect environment.

I can update the Parliament on retained EU law, in that we believe that the situation at Westminster is fast moving and the UK Government is, as we speak, performing a U-turn on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which would be hugely welcome. I understand that a new schedule on the issue might be published at Westminster as soon as tomorrow.

Has there been any consultation of the Scottish Government on this? No, there has not. Has the Scottish Parliament issued any consent? No, it has not. Do we know what the territorial extent of the bill in its new terms might be? No, we do not know that. If the UK Government is going to U-turn on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which was throwing the baby out with the bath water, and see whether we could save different bits of EU law by changing to a system under which it will legislate to get rid of such law, that will be a better way of doing things. We will work with the UK Government on that as soon as we have details from it.

Fiona Hyslop has had long experience of that portfolio and absolutely hits the nail on the head. That is why any change in the UK Government’s approach to retained EU law is absolutely key.

Most people in the chamber or watching proceedings are aware that the most numerous parts of European legislation are in the fields of rural affairs—agriculture and fisheries—and the environment. All of those are areas where it really matters to consumers and everybody else that we can retain the highest possible standards.

A really good start would be to try to make sure that we do not fall off the retained EU law cliff edge and that, going forward, we have an improved reporting structure vis-à-vis the committees and members of this Parliament, in terms of how we remain aligned. That is exactly what the Scottish Government is proposing.