���˿���

It would be beneficial for the committee to understand the in-year transfers up front, but I know that we cannot really do that; the fact that they happen in year makes that difficult. When we look at budget lines and think about the year ahead, in-year transfers that we cannot really account for will always make things tricky for us.

Last week, the committee took evidence from forestry stakeholders, who collectively expressed a need for stable funding and investment to provide confidence and to enable the sector to meet its targets. One stakeholder likened the matter to a supertanker, which is not easily stopped, turned around or restarted. Given the reduction in the funding that was available last year due to the budgetary constraints and pressures, stakeholders expect that the planting targets for this year will be missed. In the light of that, it would be helpful for the committee to understand why woodland grants have not yet been restored to 2023-24 levels in the draft budget and how you envisage target realisation in that allocation.

The committee is very aware from stakeholders and our constituencies that forestry plays a hugely significant role in the rural economy and, I would also argue, in supply chains for the companies that use the timber. In my constituency, EGGER UK, which is part of the wood panel industry, brings high-quality jobs to a low-productivity area. There are concerns that, in 20 years’ time, the availability of timber might start to drop off. At a time when we are looking to ensure that we have more home-grown timber so that we can weather the issues resulting from the war in Ukraine, which interrupted supply—or, indeed, from Brexit, which has also complicated things—I am concerned that Forestry and Land Scotland, which employs more than 10,000 people across Scotland and is one of our prominent timber producers, has had its capital budget reduced by £3.4 million. Given that we know that demand for timber across Scotland will increase, why has that budget been cut this year?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have a quick question. If the motion to annul the regulations was agreed to, what would the effect be?

I thank Jackie Baillie for coming to the committee to represent her constituents. Having witnessed electrofishing counting take place on the river right in front of my house, which my father has worked on with the River Irvine angling improvement association, I understand the views of local people who do that work. I also understand acutely that we have a responsibility to the iconic species that is our wild salmon. I understand and appreciate the issues surrounding data, what the correct data is and how we deploy it, and I urge that there be close working between associations, trusts and the Government to ensure that we have the correct information.

At this point in time, I feel that I cannot support a motion to annul, simply because I would be concerned that we would be removing protections for salmon stocks in our rivers. However, I take on board everything that everyone has said and hope that we can get to a position in the near future where this does not have to be a perennial issue that comes to the committee. I would have concerns that associations up and down the country would take issue with some of the data at some point and we could end up doing this all the time, with different associations making representations every year.

I would like to explore some of the articles in the European Convention on Human Rights. I have a question on article 8, which covers the right to decide how and when to die, and article 2, which you already referenced and which requires that there be suitable protections in place for vulnerable groups in any assisted dying process.

I take it that you do not think that the bill gets the balance right between those two provisions, but could you expand a little on that? You have also mentioned the provisions on conscientious objection. Does the bill get those provisions right? If the bill is to be enacted, what could be changed that would strengthen it?

I would like to explore the concept of the slippery slope, which is often spoken about. Indeed, Care Not Killing’s written submission states that

“any limit other than prohibition is arbitrary and ripe for challenge.”

I will ground my initial question in Scotland—I am thinking about our institutions and the way in which the bill could be enacted. Do the witnesses agree that any future expansion of the eligibility criteria for assisted dying would have to be subject to the scrutiny of the Parliament? We can perhaps start with Gordon Macdonald, as I referenced your written submission.

Do the witnesses have any views on whether any amendments could be made to prevent a broadening of the law once it was in place to prevent such challenges?

My final question is about the assertion that the bill normalises assisted dying and that numbers could increase on the back of that. From the recent figures from Canada, we can all see that increasing numbers of citizens are using their right to an assisted death. How would you come back on the assertion that that expansion of uptake is evidence of a slippery slope as well?

Do other witnesses want to come in on that?