Seòmar agus comataidhean

As the convener knows—and this is not an exam question—there are two sides of a border, and in this case, one side is being controlled by those who do not let people out. At present Gaza is an occupied territory, and the occupying power is Israel. That is a statement of fact.

As I understand the current situation, the challenge in relation to humanitarian aid in Gaza is not funding but access. We have heard, and the committee might have heard, that international aid organisations including the United Nations aid organisation that operates in Gaza—UNRWA—have months’ worth of stockpiled supplies that they cannot get into Gaza. That being said, the situation in Gaza is so extreme—I have every confidence that committee members know how harrowing it is—that, even if all aid could get in, there would still be very significant suffering there.

We have to hope that there will be a ceasefire and, this morning, there are reports that President Trump has said that he believes that there is the prospect of one shortly. Should that come about—we certainly hope that it will—not only will there be a call on all kinds of donors and aid organisations to deal with the immediate suffering but a significant rebuilding programme will be required because of the level of destruction in Gaza.

I have not held discussions about that yet because that is not where things are at. We have provided aid through our trusted partners in consort with the UK Government. That aid has been made available, but there are still access issues, of which the committee is well aware.

No, I am talking about when you talked about legislative consent.

It is. Another, perhaps less obvious, observation was brought to my attention about the difference in how the aid is being distributed and how it impacts a society. Previously, when the United Nations distributed food aid and humanitarian supplies through 400 different points, there was not the same rush on a limited number of geographical locations with great danger.

The way that aid and humanitarian supplies were provided also previously involved in the local economy. Bread supplied to Gazans as part of humanitarian aid was often baked in Gaza, so the humanitarian aid was part and parcel of the Gazan economy and wider society. Now, that is not the way that things are happening. Short of some of the funding mechanisms, which are the international norm, whereby people are provided with the ability to buy things in markets—even that is limited—the Israeli-American process involves supplies being brought in from elsewhere. There is not the same kind of benefit that there was under the previous system.

Mr Brown is right that younger men tend to go for the aid because of the weight of the bags and the distance that people have to walk. Last night, there was talk of a three-hour walk there and a three-hour walk back. If one is picking up supplies for a family, they weigh a lot and the circumstances in Gaza are such that people now have to walk as opposed to there being public transport because the infrastructure has been destroyed.

We have had discussions with officials, and, as the cabinet secretary with responsibility in this area, I am certainly keen to be advised on what impact the UK Government’s cuts to its aid budget will have on our operations. Countries such as Malawi are classified as less of a priority for the UK Government than tier 1. One can understand why Gaza, Ukraine or Sudan are in tier 1. However, if that leads to other countries not being a priority and to aid being cut, where we have a particular locus, as we do with our partner countries, that will have consequences for us. I need advice on whether that is part of the review or consideration. I am very well advised by colleagues who, more often than not, have a background in the Foreign Office and the previous Department for International Development. We have very talented people in the Scottish Government who advise on these matters, but we are going to have to consider this.

The issue affects not only countries such as ours but countries, such as Ireland, that also have a presence in certain countries. When I met my opposite number in the Irish Government, Neale Richmond TD, he raised this issue, too, because there is a concern on the part of some countries that are not deprioritising humanitarian aid that the UK and the United States are suddenly cutting their international aid significantly. That will have an impact in countries where we are trying to make a difference, so we will have to work out what the impact will be and how we can ameliorate the cut in aid.

However, to go back to the initial part of Mr Brown’s question about funding for Gaza, I have been advised that, in the immediate circumstances, the drop off in aid that a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, have announced is not yet impacting the volume of aid that could be taken into Gaza. That could well change as the cuts come in—that is entirely possible—and we should be aware of that.

Another facet of aid cuts is that we should not lose sight of the impact that they have on our aid partners, some of which are international organisations. People might not be aware that the European headquarters of Mercy Corps is in Edinburgh. Therefore, the impact, including on humanitarian organisations, is being felt here as well as in the countries that should be getting the aid, which, sadly, is being cut by the UK.

Official records are taken of all official meetings.

I am talking about formal discussions.

As Mr Bibby knows, the Scottish Government has an office in Brussels—

As we know, the First Minister gives evidence to committees of the Parliament, so that question is best directed to him, but I am happy to update the convener and other colleagues in due course.

If I can answer through the chair—I think that that is the custom and practice here.

There is a false equivalence between the formal relations between Governments within the United Kingdom in relation to processes that involve negotiations with the European Union, and civil servants speaking to other UK civil servants in UK Government departments or meeting or discussing things in passing with civil servants of other countries in Brussels in order to be informed, which is their job. The fundamental difference between those two things should be obvious to absolutely everybody.

It is about the relative importance of the formal process that ministers of the UK Government attend and through which they negotiate outcomes in devolved areas of responsibility, which are then not reported as a matter of course to the devolved administrations in the United Kingdom—indeed, that kind of process has not been working as it should—and the process of one finding out about the generality of negotiations, which is the talk of SW1, Brussels and the civil servants in Edinburgh about the progress that has been made.

To Mr Bibby’s point, no formal discussions took place as part of the process—unfortunately so, because Scotland is devolved and it is a United Kingdom Government that negotiates on our behalf as part of the UK’s constitutional settlement.