Seòmar agus comataidhean

On a point of order, convener. Is it entirely parliamentary for members on the committee to describe each other as “spineless”?

The use of the precautionary principle in Government science has been discussed throughout. Will Dr Needle articulate what that means in this context and what its aims are?

Does the cabinet secretary want to add anything to that? Perhaps Allan Gibb might want to come in, because my question is about the science.

The Government has moved some of the way to meet fishers’ concerns. From what you say, that was clearly motivated by a desire to mitigate the impact on the industry. Is the Government open in principle to introducing any other mitigations in future should the evidence merit it?

Thank you.

I do not think that anyone would underestimate the difficulties around the issue and the balancing acts that are involved, but I think that we are dealing with a Government that has attempted to meet concerns, so I will vote accordingly.

What would be the future implications for conservation of identifying a separate or distinct sub-stock?

The only thing that I would add to that is a certain word that you are too polite to mention: Brexit. That has had a real impact on those communities.

Convener, can I ask if it is—

I have a question on mainstreaming the funding of arts and culture in bigger projects, whether those are infrastructure projects for town centres or, as we have talked about in the past in this committee, big projects for the health service. If we look at other countries, Ireland has been cited as an example of where a percentage of the project itself is ring fenced or earmarked for culture and arts. Do you think that we have anything to learn from that model?