 Thank you very much. The next item of business is topical questions. Before I call the question, can I remind members that there are active legal proceedings concerning the European arrest warrant issued in relation to Clara Ponsati? Therefore, the sub-judice rule is engaged, and members should be careful avoiding the details of the case or making comments that might be seen to influence proceedings. Having said that, could I call Claire Hockey? To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with other Governments regarding the enforcement of European arrest warrants. It is well established that the Scottish Government supports the right of the people of Catalonia to determine its own future. We profoundly regret that the Spanish Government has failed to engage in dialogue with Catalonia's politicians and that the issue is now instead subject to the judicial process. We have today been in touch with the Spanish Embassy and the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs is writing to the Spanish Ambassador to express the Scottish Government's regret at the issuing of a European arrest warrant for members of the former Catalan Government and re-elected members of the Catalan Parliament. The fact that our justice system is legally obliged to follow due process in the determination of extradition requests does not change those views. The matter is, however, now sub-duracy. It is important that the Parliament should respect that rule, which is designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process. Under the extradition act 2003, Scottish ministers have no role in the determination of European arrest warrants. Our police, prosecutors and courts are independent and are legally obliged under EU and domestic law to fulfil their responsibilities. Scottish ministers have no powers to intervene in this process. However, the legal process includes the right of any individual that is subject to proceedings under the act 2003 to oppose their extradition in the courts, and it is vital that the integrity of the process is protected. Enforcement of European arrest warrants is not a matter for the Scottish Government. The Lord Advocate has a statutory responsibility under the extradition act 2003 to conduct extradition hearings on behalf of the requesting state. The function is an aspect of his independent prosecutorial function. It is independent of ministers who have no role in deciding on European arrest warrant requests. The decision on whether to order extradition is a matter for the courts. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Will the Scottish Government raise the use of the European arrest warrant with the European Commission? I can inform the chamber and the member that we have concerns over how the system of European arrest warrants is being used. We will be raising the matter with the European Commission. I should point out to members that the European legislation establishing European arrest warrants itself makes clear that it does not modify the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles, but we will, in due course, be raising the matter with the European Commission. I appreciate the limitations on the Scottish Government to do or say much on any specific case to ensure the integrity of the process. However, can I ask the Scottish Government whether it will restate its opposition to the actions of the Spanish Government in general terms in relation to the arrest and imprisonment of democratically elected Catalan politicians? The First Minister has already said that it is time for dialogue to replace confrontation. As I mentioned in my response, we profoundly regret the fact that the Spanish Government has failed to engage in dialogue with Catalan politicians and that the issue has now found itself as being subject to the judicial process. Dialogue should find a way that complies with the rule of law but one that also respects democracy and the right of the people of Catalonia to choose their own future. Cabinet Secretary, there is a clear tension here. The Scottish Government says that it supports the arrest process but also says that Spain should not seek the arrest. Previously, the cabinet secretary said that the arrest warrant means that Scotland is not viewed as a safe haven by those who seek to escape justice. Can the cabinet secretary be clear at what point and in what circumstances would opposition in principle turn into opposition in practice? First of all, I want to correct the mischaracterisation that the member I hope has not deliberately set out to make in the course of his question. As a Government, we fully respect the due process of European arrest wants. That is exactly what is taking place now. We profoundly regret the failure of the Spanish Government to resolve the matter through dialogue rather than through the judicial process but we now respect the fact that the due process has been engaged as a result of a European arrest want being issued. That is exactly what will happen as a result of that. Daniel Johnson to be followed by John Finnie. The cabinet secretary pointed to the European arrest warrant system as one being about the integrity of the judicial process. Outside the specifics, as they may be, it is an example of strong European co-operation that enables our judicial process to pursue criminals who do not necessarily respect national boundaries. To update the chamber on how the UK is withdrawal from the EU and the loss of the European arrest warrant will impact our judicial system and whether there are plans for a successor arrangement. First of all, I want to recognise the right of the people of Catalonia to self-determination and their right to do so within the rule of law. We would encourage parties, both at the Spanish Government level and at the Catalan Government level, to seek to have dialogue in order to resolve those issues and to ensure that the future determination of Catalonia is one that is agreed through mutual respect and dialogue rather than confrontation. However, there is also strong value in the European arrest warrant system that is used in Scotland and has been used for a number of years. Is that risk as a result of Brexit? As it stands from the discussions that we have had so far with the UK Government, it is unclear what any successor arrangements would be other than new extradition treaties. John Finnie is to be followed by Willie Rennie. Cabinet Secretary, the legal process is understood, but of course the law does not operate in isolation. The former vial, South African regime and indeed the present vial, Israeli apartheid regime will both tell you that they have acted legally at the time. So there must be a tipping point at which political intervention takes place. If a regime is mercilessly beating innocent defenceless citizens, if it is jailing elected politicians, what is the tipping point for the Scottish Government before there is political intervention? It is important to recognise the provisions that are contained within the Extradition Act 2003, particularly for European arrest warrants, because the determination whether an individual is to be extradited will be determined by the courts. There are a number of very prescribed questions that the court must address. Amongst other things, extradition can only be ordered if the court considers that to do so is compliant with the person's rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. There are a number of prescribed questions that the courts need to satisfy, prior to making a decision. That is what will happen in any European arrest warrant that is being contested. A key part of that is to ensure that it complies with the European Convention of Human Rights. Willie Rennie, to be followed by Sandra White. Does the minister agree with me that concern about this issue is not limited to those who support Scottish independence? Clara Pincetti, an academic at St Andrews University in my constituency, is that the centre of this major political disagreement in Catalonia. It should be the political democratic process that resolves that political disagreement, just like in Scotland in 2014. Does the minister agree with me that dragging that into the courts is not the long-term solution for Spain or for Catalonia? I am sure that the member will recognise that I cannot comment on any individual case because the sub-judice rule now applies. However, I made it very clear in my opening answer to Claire Hockey that we profoundly regret the fact that the Spanish Government has failed to engage in dialogue with the Catalonian politicians and that the issue has now found itself as part of a judicial process. As the First Minister has also stated, this is a time for dialogue rather than confrontation. Those matters are best dealt with through dialogue, respecting the right of the people of Catalonia to self-determination and to do so within the rule of law. In my view and in the Government's view, it is in the interests of all parties to find dialogue that assists in achieving that and to do so, which can prevent the need for matters ending up in the judicial process. The question is quite close to one particular case. The minister steered his way away from that, but I will try not to comment on the actual case. Sandra White is followed by Ivan McKee. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that members should remember that, reminded that, after the October referendum vote, it was the Spanish Government that called for this other referendum vote. People's rights to even vote have been compromised. People's rights to even vote have been compromised by the actions of the Spanish Government. Will the minister therefore join me in condemning the actions of the Spanish Government and the Europe-wide pursuit of elected Catalan politicians through the use of the European arrest warrant? Does the minister agree that such measures must only be pursued in human rights issues and civil liberties? The decision over the future of Catalonia is clearly a matter for the people who live there. As a Democrat, I fully respect their right to self-determination and to choose the form of government that best suits their needs. That is an issue that is not just important to me, but it is one that is enshrined within the UN Charter. As I mentioned earlier, it is important to recognise that, under the existing legislation that established the European arrest warrant mechanism, it makes very clear that it does not modify the obligations to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles. In doing so, those are matters that will be considered by the court in any individual case. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that countries wishing to make use of the European arrest warrant system should abide by the founding principles of the European Union of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms? I recognise the concerns that the member has raised, which is echoed by a number of other members in the course of their questions. When I responded to Clare Hockey's question, we shall be raising the issue of European arrest warrants with the European Commission. European arrest warrants, as I mentioned to Daniel Johnston, are a very useful tool, and we wish to see them used in accordance with the legislation's clear reference to fundamental rights and legal principles. We will pursue the matter with the European Commission in due course. Thank you very much. I thank all members and the minister for their forbearance in discussing this topical issue without straying into subject to see a matter.