I agree that it has taken a lengthy time to progress with the UK Government a section 104 order on converting marriages to civil partnerships. There is a need for a section 104 order—for example, provisions need to be made so that a marriage that would be converted to a civil partnership in Scotland would be recognised as such in the rest of the United Kingdom.

We will make progress. Scottish Government officials will write to the Scotland Office in the next week or so with full policy details of what needs to be included in the order. Officials will agree a timetable, and Scottish Government officials will keep people who are interested in the order fully informed of developments. I hope that the Scotland Office will work to ensure that all arms of the UK Government are fully engaged.

More generally, the Minister for Parliamentary Business will continue to work with the Scotland Office and the UK Government to ensure that Scotland Act 1998 orders are progressed smoothly and quickly, which is in the interests of the people of Scotland, whatever their views on the current devolution settlement.

Since the outset of the current conflict, the Scottish Government has contributed £1.3 million in humanitarian funding for Gaza and the wider region. That has included £750,000 through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in December 2023 and £550,000 for the middle east through the Disasters Emergency Committee, Mercy Corps and the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, which includes the further £300,000 that was announced at the end of April.

We receive regular briefings from United Nations agencies, the DEC and our humanitarian emergency fund panel members. They warn of the catastrophic situation that is being caused by the inhumane restrictions on aid imposed by Israel. The World Food Programme has enough food on the border to feed the entire population for two months, all while people in Gaza face starvation. The situation is utterly shameful and avoidable, and the international community, including the United Kingdom, must act now.

I have answered the question: no aid is being distributed on the ground. If the member has any further specific questions, I would be happy to answer them, but I would have thought that Mr Kerr would be better informed about the situation on the ground at the present time.

In my initial answer to Sharon Dowey I confirmed that the review is independent of the Scottish Government, so it is not for me, beyond the remit that I have agreed with its chair, to point her to issues that should or should not be looked into. I am sure that the chair will look closely at the record of the question that the member has raised, and I have no doubt that the chair will give evidence to the Scottish Parliament at some stage, when such questions can be asked.

I point out to Sharon Dowey that I have taken every opportunity to encourage members, and everyone in the wider cultural and arts communities, to take part in the independent review, and I encourage her to raise her concerns directly through the review.

I agreed the remit of the review of Creative Scotland with the independent chair, Angela Leitch, and it was published on the Scottish Government’s website last month. The review will consider Creative Scotland’s purpose, functions, structure and partnerships—and, as well as its governance and leadership, its performance, finances and distribution of funds. The review is independent of the Scottish Government, and it will deliver its recommendations in November.

Ben Macpherson is absolutely right to mention events in Edinburgh Northern and Leith. I add to that list the Meadows festival in Edinburgh Central—of course, other festivals are available throughout the rest of the country.

The Scottish Government is committed to supporting a thriving music industry in Scotland, including grass-roots music venues, which are key for emerging Scottish talent. The fact that 77 per cent of the recipients of multiyear funding represent organisations that focus on exhibitions, events and performances underlines our emphasis on supporting local platforms across Scotland.

I have had this interchange with Alex Cole-Hamilton before and, from the outset, I have been of the view that there is no effective substitute for the Erasmus+ scheme other than Erasmus+. Although the Taith scheme in Wales had much to commend it, I am sure that if, in the cold light of day, he looks at the scope and scale of that scheme compared with Erasmus+, even he must realise that Erasmus+ is where it is at.

I hope that Alex Cole-Hamilton will support the Scottish Government in making the case to the UK Government that the scheme should be as ambitious for and widely accessible to as many students as possible. Again, that is an area on which I could not give him any information, if he were to ask, because, sadly, the UK Government has not shared that with the Scottish Government—or with the Scottish Labour Party.

It beggars belief that the agreement has been reached by selling out Scotland’s fishing communities. Labour promised those communities that their interests would be protected in the process, but, after years of Westminster’s broken promises, fishing communities in Scotland could now find themselves in the worst of all worlds.

Fishing was famously—infamously—described by Westminster as “expendable” when the UK joined Europe. I think that there was a Conservative Government at the time, and it is clear that that attitude has not changed in the half-century since.

Given the importance of fishing to Scotland, it is ridiculous and deeply disrespectful that the Scottish Government was not even consulted. We urge the UK Government to urgently clarify how the new fishing and coastal growth fund will be administered and apportioned.

As with most deals, there are things that are worth welcoming. I hope that everybody agrees that an agriculture, food and sanitary and phytosanitary deal is a good thing. We have called for it for the longest of times, and I outlined in my statement the further areas that we welcome.

Curiously, Mr Bibby has come to the chamber today but will not even echo the criticism made by his Labour colleague the First Minister of Wales. Eluned Morgan shared the same criticism as that made by the Scottish Government—as have ministers in Northern Ireland—of the way in which the UK Labour Government has dealt with the fisheries issue. Why Neil Bibby finds it so difficult to come here and acknowledge that is beyond me.

Do I support a deal on SPS arrangements? Absolutely. Do I support being part of Erasmus+? Yes, I do. Am I sorry that the UK Government did not allow Scotland and the rest of the UK to rejoin the creative Europe programme? Yes, because that is a shortcoming—[Interruption.] Neil Bibby must reflect on why the Labour party in Wales is prepared to be critical of the fisheries arrangements in the deal when the Scottish Labour party, in the country that has the biggest single concentration of fishing interests—[Interruption.]

Under this arrangement, because this is a statement about the agreement reached by the UK Labour Government, on Scotland’s behalf, Scotland has been signed up to a 12-year tie-in that is a straitjacket deal on fisheries. Over the next 12 years—[Interruption.]