That is very helpful.

It was really useful to get the update that you sent us on 16 January, which kicks off by talking about the BBC’s income declining in real terms by 30 per cent before the 2022 licence fee freeze. I get the pressure that is on you, and we have heard the head of Creative Scotland describe the situation as a “perfect storm” for arts and culture. Another key quote, which I took away from Tuesday night’s cross-party group meeting, is that “you cannot eat art”. It is about careers for artists and how to slot that into where it might fit in BBC Scotland. Please try to explain it to us, because four of the five key BBC charter principles totally fit with that when it comes to live music such as pipe music, jazz and classical. Performers mentioned to us last week that live performances are a massive loss.

You have talked about podcasts and the reduced use of live radio. Is there not a way in which you can use live broadcasts by putting them in podcasts, on live radio and on BBC Sounds? Where is the financial cut-across? Does it not make sense to reuse that content at all points? Please explain the cutting of programming to us in financial terms.

I want to come back to William Wragg on that question. The point about what is party political, what is constitutional and what the cross-overs are is really interesting. You mentioned the issue of respect and trust. How do you embed that in the process?

To what extent will your committee look at legislative consent motions when devolved concerns are expressed at a parliamentary rather than an intergovernmental level? To what extent is that on your radar? To what extent do MPs on your committee challenge the Government when looking at an issue in the round? I am thinking about the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. On one level, that is very controversial, but our stakeholder input shows that people are unhappy on a different kind of scale. How would you handle something like that?

That is very useful. I wanted that clarified because, given the tensions, working out whether people agree with one another is significant when making recommendations.

Do you want to say a bit more about transparency? How would we deliver that or make it work in the different legislatures, as well as across the UK? I am conscious that the retained EU law issue makes that particularly challenging for us all, but what would be your key recommendation as a committee?

That is useful, and it provides a nice link to my final question, which is to Baroness Drake. Will you talk about how you are able to provide scrutiny? What is your committee’s role in ensuring that the concerns that devolved legislatures express are taken on board when the House of Lords provides scrutiny? Have you any thoughts on how the system could be made more effective and transparent?

The sense on our committee is that these major challenges, particularly following Brexit, have not really been experienced before. On the issue of safeguards, in relation to the Sewel convention and the “not normally” principle, to what extent is there an awareness of the significance of that convention regularly being overridden? What is your committee’s view on that?

We would be interested in seeing that. I am very interested in the point that you made about the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Were witnesses from different parts of the UK involved in the work that your committee did on that bill?

I listened to Paul McLennan’s comment about how far behind Denmark we are now in respect of community heat networks and renewables. Is there something that we need to be doing with political leadership to link up our councils and the Scottish Government to see what is possible? We have some excellent schemes, but they are not everywhere, and we need to move from saying, “It’s a good idea,” to saying, “We need to do this as standard practice and make it happen.”

I welcome the debate and believe that there are two contexts to it: climate security and global security. I very much agree with the general thrust of the motion and, indeed, of the speeches that the cabinet secretary and Donald Cameron made. Climate security has to be a key priority for the Parliament and for legislators across the world.

The past few years have shown us the devastating impact of failing to address the climate emergency. For example, at the January meeting of the cross-party group on Pakistan, we discussed how to support the rebuilding of the Pakistan economy and the country after a third of that country experienced massive floods that would have been unheard of 10 years ago.

Last year, we had excellent discussions in our Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s online seminars, where we shared the work of our Scottish Parliament on sustainable development. There is much more that we could do to share best practice, but it is absolutely central. For example, I thought that it was great that our Presiding Officer led a delegation to the Nordic Council last October.

For our islands, rural communities and coastal regions, in particular, we need to exchange best practice on low-carbon energy production and heat networks, especially now that we are experiencing a cost of living crisis. For our cities, we urgently need to adopt the sort of work that Denmark has done on building municipal low-carbon heat networks in places such as Copenhagen.

We need to reduce our transport and building emissions if we are to deliver on our climate targets, but, much more, we need to work with our neighbouring countries and legislatures to enable the transformational shift that the world needs. Given the climate crisis, work with our Arctic neighbours has to be part of our agenda as a Parliament, as well as part of the Government’s agenda.

The Arctic Council, which has been mentioned, brings together the nations with territory in the Arctic circle: the USA, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland. It is worth noting that they have worked together since 1996 to promote co-operation, giving indigenous nations a formal voice and addressing conservation as a key priority. The council has co-ordinated work on addressing biodiversity, conservation, pollution, sustainability, tourism and shipping.

The UK is an observer at the Arctic Council and has contributed to several of the papers that it has published, in particular on biodiversity and pollution. In 2019, the Scottish Government published its “Arctic Connections: Scotland’s Arctic Policy Framework” paper, which again highlighted the common challenges and opportunities, and in particular—as the cabinet secretary focused on—the academic links. I agree that we need to strengthen and build those academic links with universities across our regions, but we also need to focus on enabling our students to have more opportunities to study in neighbouring countries and to build our connections for the long run. That is important.

I also highlight one of the key recommendations that Scottish Labour proposed last year, in Gordon Brown’s commission on the UK’s future, which was to look at Scotland being able to sign international agreements in devolved areas. In the aftermath of the excellent connections that we made at the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—in Glasgow, we are very keen to pursue that.

There is an awful lot in the motion with which we in Scottish Labour are able to agree. However, I am seeking to amend it because it does not mention the other issue on which countries in the Arctic circle are currently focused, which is global security. As we debated in Parliament last week, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has shifted global politics, so it is important to acknowledge that, in relation to the Arctic, the Russian Government has decided to make changes to its state Arctic policy that remove reference to co-operation with the Arctic Council and instead prioritise solely Russian national interest. That is deeply concerning, and I want us, as a Parliament, to note that.

Climate change should be our priority, and we cannot afford to delay the radical action that we need to protect our communities. Sea level rise, melting glaciers and extreme weather are becoming increasingly prevalent, and the Arctic region is particularly vulnerable. Given our global climate crisis, we need global and regional co-operation, with Governments working together and Parliaments sharing best practice, rather than countries pursuing agendas that undermine that collective ambition.

As we debated last week, peace in Ukraine, with Ukraine’s sovereignty recognised and a withdrawal of Putin’s troops from Ukrainian soil, is critical, but we also need to acknowledge that that invasion has had an impact on wider global security, and work together.

I support the broad thrust of the Government’s motion, and I support Donald Cameron’s amendment. Nevertheless, I wanted to flag up the damage that is being done by the Russian invasion, which is impacting on global security and diverting the political energy that we all need to work together to address our shared climate emergency.

We should support our Arctic neighbours, given that the temperatures in the Arctic continue to rise way above the global average. We need to promote that joint work across our neighbouring Governments and Parliaments. It is not just in our interests—it is absolutely vital to the interests of our future generations.

I move amendment S6M-08073.2, to leave out from “Scotland’s strategic role” to “developed there” and insert:

“the value of Scotland’s involvement in multilateral relations with Arctic nations; agrees on the value of increasing collaboration and building stronger relationships between Scotland and Arctic nations; recognises the importance of participation in educational programmes and sharing knowledge to promote sustainable development in the region and learn from best practice developed there; notes with concern Russia’s recent changes to its Arctic Policy, which remove reference to cooperation with the Arctic Council and instead prioritise ‘the national interests of the Russian Federation’; believes that any framework for Arctic cooperation must respect sovereignty and the rule of law, and that this is incompatible with the invasion and annexation of the sovereign territory of neighbouring states”.

It will come as no surprise to the cabinet secretary that I am going to raise the issue of transparency; I have raised it before. My question is about the ability of MSPs to scrutinise where the Scottish Government decides to keep pace with EU legislation and where it does not. That transparency is severely constrained due to a lack of information.

Will the cabinet secretary confirm whether the Scottish Government is still considering the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee’s proposal for a memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, on providing information on and scrutiny of the Government’s approach to keeping pace with key pieces of EU legislation?