Seòmar agus comataidhean

I said to the committee earlier that there are two particular constraints or realities around which our commitment operates; first is the reality of our devolved competence and the wider UK structures, and second is whether European Union measures have demonstrable effect. To take an easy example, we are in a country where, unless somebody can correct me, we cannot grow olives, and we do not have a wine production sector, so European Union legislation on olive growing or wine production does not have an effect. Then there are things that are obviously within devolved competence, have demonstrable effect here and do not have a disadvantage. Around those realities, consideration needs to be given as to what we are doing.

Were we in the European Union, the situation would be entirely different, because everything would be, from a legislative standpoint, part of a treaty obligation and a requirement to ensure that one fully integrates the entire corpus of EU law. We have already inherited 47 years’ worth of that in Scotland.

Ms Forbes’s point is absolutely correct. There is not a 100 per cent read-across, notwithstanding the commitment to remain aligned. However, for anybody who understands how the European Union works and the fact that we are now not in the European Union, there will be areas that require, because they do not have direct impact on us, or because of the nature of the devolved settlement and how that works, a caveat—if one wants to call it a caveat—around appropriateness and possibility.

I have written down a few of those, and they are there for a reason, which is that we will not incorporate things that have no impact here or where the constraints are such that we cannot. That should not detract from the fact that, in the main, we will do exactly that which we have intended to do, which is to remain aligned.

George, do you wish to add anything from an administrative point of view, as somebody at the sharp end of making the decisions?

I could not agree more. Indeed, I made that point prior to Mr Brown’s membership of the committee. There is a danger in saying, “We require everything in its raw format”—that is, unprocessed, unassessed and without prioritisation or the help of expert advisers, clerks or academics in assessing the importance of a regulation, a directive and so on. Having a sift process is a good thing, but it must operate in a way that can give individual committee members or different subject committees of the Parliament the opportunity in good time—I stress that phrase “in good time”, because it is the key factor—to influence the Government’s thinking and, indeed, the legislative programme, given that legislative instruments might well be at play, and to allow you as parliamentarians and collectively as a committee to discharge your responsibilities.

The injunction with regard to proportionality is key. Will we get that right all the time? Probably not, because of the volume of material. However, because we are looking back, looking at what is happening presently and looking at what is happening in the future, you can—to go back to Mr Ruskell’s specific example on legislation—allow evidence to be taken in good time, allow more information to be drawn down and satisfy yourselves that you have done everything that you think is necessary and proportionate.

We are trying to do exactly the same, and the fact that there is an open channel between officials and committee clerks is also very helpful. We should not be satisfying your demands as a committee just from evidence session to evidence session—it should be an on-going process. You should be aware of things that are happening in the meantime, and we should be aware of any specific issues that you might have.

Indeed, Mr Cameron’s question was a good example of that; he wanted to know something technical, but although I have a very big folder, I did not have that information, and I would have liked to have been able to furnish him with it. If we can get that process working well, questions will, I hope, be answered, but if more information is required, it can be given in good time, as part of the committee’s on-going investigations and inquiries.

We all understand that this is quite a technical area, so we are all very grateful to have the support of committee clerks and advisers and, in my case, my civil service colleagues here and a wider team. If any of them want to illustrate with specifics the points that I am making in generality, I would be grateful for additional comments.

The first thing that I would say is that we are seeking to remain aligned with the EU where it is appropriate to do so. Using phrases such as “where it is appropriate”, “where it is possible” and “where it is meaningful” matters. We are not in the European Union, so we are trying to find our best way, using a variety of different approaches, to make sure that we can remain aligned and working in parallel with the EU. We will do that within devolved competence, and we will do that to implement measures that have demonstrable effect.

There are areas in which it is unlikely that there would be demonstrable effect, and there are areas in which measures relate to EU organisations that we are not a part of, or they might be involved in particular areas in which there is no legal locus here. It is literally impossible to do 100 per cent of what the EU is doing in terms of its policy, because we are not in the EU now.

That said, we are going to do everything that we can to maintain the standards and values of the European Union and its strategic approach to things. We have a resource in the Scottish Government here and, indeed, in Scotland House in Brussels—I think that a good number of committee members have already been there, so you will know how competent the team is. Those resources will, in co-ordination, ensure the best way of providing you—and through you, to business and such like—with an understanding of which legislation will have an impact on what we are going to be doing. Everyone on the committee will understand the reporting mechanisms that have been brought in train and will, as a result, be aware of how, when measures are introduced, alignment will be achieved.

I think that we are in a much better place now. As there have been quite a few changes on the committee, some colleagues might not have heard this, but I have already given the committee a commitment in this respect and have made it clear that, having spent 10 years on the European Scrutiny Committee at Westminster, where every week we had to go through European Union proposals, and having quite literally sat where you are sitting, I do understand what you require to be satisfied that you can scrutinise what the Scottish Government is doing on alignment. However, it is appreciated that this has the potential to be a massive undertaking, so we are trying to find a balance between reporting the legislation, the policies and the strategies of the European Union and how we are seeking to remain aligned with them, in order that you can scrutinise what we are doing. It is about striking a balance between giving you something unwieldy and too technical, with perhaps too much being lost in the detail, and giving you everything that you require.

As I have said, this is the first published iteration of this approach. If there is something that you feel that you require more of or less of, or if you feel that you require something different, we are very open to hearing those comments. I know that my colleagues and the committee clerks have been working closely to ensure that our reporting method is of a standard that is appropriate to you.

Well, I think that that will show the committee’s workings in action. We are providing the context for the work that we are doing; we are aware of and assessing the proposals, and we are considering what we would wish to do to remain aligned and what implications that might have in the wider context that Mr Ruskell has outlined. That sort of approach leads to exactly those questions being asked.

I cannot be psychic, and neither can my colleagues. The list of legislation is very long, and there might be something there that is not interesting to anybody at all. However, given the variety of interests that members have, there might be really burning issues for you. Now, because we have been able to highlight the things that are on the docket, so to speak, if you have questions, you may ask them in writing, or if your questions are of such import that you wish me or any of my colleagues to give evidence, we can do that.

There is another aspect to this. The information that we provide has been done in such a way that the subject committees of the Scottish Parliament, which have a particular locus in different policy areas, can say that these environmental issues, to use the example that Mr Ruskell gave, should be considered in the round by the Scottish Parliament committee that deals with environmental and related matters. We hope that this process will make that easier.

It is not for me to sit here and outline specific bits of European legislation today, but this is the start of a process of giving the committee the opportunity to ensure that your colleagues on other committees are aware of proposals, what should be looked at more closely and so on, or whether you wish us to provide you with more evidence as part of your work as a committee, because you require more information about something and how it links with other areas. That is, I think, how the process is supposed to work, so Mr Ruskell is making the point for me. The point is for me to give you an awareness of what has happened, what we have done with it, what is being considered and what is coming down the track that we need to think about more.

Notwithstanding the fact that we are no longer in the European Union, there are still ways in which we can make our views about certain measures known to EU colleagues. A little bit of horizon scanning would be useful in that regard, and I hope that that is what can emerge from the reporting mechanism.

I will answer the second part of that and ask George Macpherson to come in on the first part and to say whether he has any subsequent things to mention on the car charging point.

That is also an issue where, in my mind, I really hope that the Parliament’s subject committees, which are aware of how the Scottish Government has sought to align with what has come through the EU institutions, ask themselves after some time whether it is working as intended, as they would do with anything else. That is how this is supposed to work. If is not working, we need to work out why, but something such as that is absolutely at the heart of committees’ scrutiny work. If you do not have enough information, ask for it. If you want ministers to give evidence about specific measures, have them do that. In the meantime, if there are technical issues or subjects that lie close to the heart of one member rather than the committee as a whole, please raise them us and we will deal with them in the usual ways.

I will answer the first part of Donald Cameron’s question, and there will be some updating on the second part. On the first point, I absolutely acknowledge that, in the absence of a reporting mechanism, the committee found itself in an imbalance of understanding, knowledge and information. From the first instance of that being the subject of discussion with me before the committee, I have always acknowledged it. I want to be as helpful as possible and have always explained my own personal experience from having had to do this at the other end of the spectrum—every week, the European Scrutiny Committee in the UK Parliament had a very thick sheaf of papers even after a sift by four legal advisers, all of whom were former UK ambassadors. The volume of material that can be scrutinised is enormous.

This is the first attempt at providing a mechanism that should point you towards what we have done, what we are considering and what we expect to be coming down the line, and it is a really good start. There will be areas for which one wants more information. One will be aware of the ground, which was perhaps not previously the case. I therefore totally agree, and I hope that we get the balance right. That is why I say again, if more is required, or less, or if things are needed in a slightly different format, let us try to make that work.

However, I hope that there is an appreciation that this is a very genuine attempt by the Government to work with the committee for the benefit of better lawmaking and scrutiny. We are open to any feedback about what needs to change in relation to that mechanism, but the work is just starting, so we can give it a chance to bed in and then take an iterative approach as we go forward.

George Macpherson, do you want to add anything on the tertiary law points?

I will have to furnish Mr Cameron with some advice from Cabinet colleagues who have primary responsibility for that. That is where one of the dangers lies in having a report that includes a myriad of listings of different legislative proposals, because one can pick one out of the hat, draw attention to it and ask questions about it. I want to be able to provide Mr Cameron with the answer to his question, but I am not in a position to do that.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the committee on the First Minister’s letter calling for an immediate ceasefire on all sides to allow the creation of a humanitarian corridor into and out of Gaza.

I start by reiterating the Scottish Government’s condemnation of the appalling attacks that were carried out by Hamas on 7 October. That barbaric attack was the single biggest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust. We must all acknowledge the trauma that that outrage has caused not only for the nation of Israel and Israelis but among Jewish communities in Scotland and around the world. Among the victims was Bernard Cowan, an innocent Scot from Glasgow, and I extend my heartfelt condolences to his family and to the families of all his fellow victims.

Our condemnation is clear: Hamas missile attacks on Israel must stop and Hamas must release immediately and unconditionally all hostages. As we have repeatedly stated, Israel clearly has a right to self-defence, and Hamas and organisations like it cannot be a part of Gaza’s future. We must be clear: Hamas is not Gaza, and Gaza is not Hamas. All Israelis and Palestinians have the right to live in peace and security.

As President Biden has said, in defending itself and its citizens, Israel must act in a manner that is consistent with international humanitarian law, which prioritises the protection of civilians. The situation that is now unfolding in Gaza is disastrous. More than 1.4 million people have been displaced. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East—UNRWA—reports that more than 670,000 people are in its shelters, which is three times what is supposed to be their maximum capacity. Water, food, fuel and medical supplies are restricted. The trickle of aid through the Rafah crossing is nowhere near enough, and the World Health Organization has warned of an imminent public health catastrophe.

All the while, fatalities continue to mount. In addition to the more than 1,400 Israelis who have been slaughtered by Hamas, more than 8,500 Palestinians have now been killed. The head of UNICEF has said that

“more than 420 children are being killed or injured in Gaza each day”.

A tragedy is unfolding before our eyes. That is why the First Minister has written to political leaders across the United Kingdom to emphasise that we must do everything within our powers to stop it. He has called for all parties to commit to an immediate ceasefire and to allow a humanitarian corridor to be opened so that life-saving supplies can get into Gaza and innocent civilians who want to leave can be given safe passage out. That is consistent with calls by the United Nations secretary general and many other world leaders.

For those Gazans who want to stay, humanitarian aid will be vital, and we have already pledged £500,000 to UNRWA, to support its flash appeal. The First Minister will meet UNRWA later today, and I can confirm to the committee that, this morning, we will announce that we will provide a further £250,000 to support the immediate humanitarian effort.

It is imperative that humanitarian agencies are able to safely deliver aid into Gaza in the quantities that are needed. All parties should work together to that end. For those who want to leave, the First Minister has expressed our support for the creation of a worldwide refugee resettlement scheme.

My colleague Shirley-Anne Somerville, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, has written to the Home Secretary to formally request that the United Kingdom Government use the already established UK resettlement scheme to work with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to establish a route to safety for the most vulnerable Gazans, such as children and families and those with severe health needs, and those with links to residents in Scotland. She has also reiterated that Scotland is ready to play its part in the medical evacuation of injured citizens from Gaza, and Israeli citizens if required, through activation of the UK medical evacuation scheme. Scottish hospitals stand ready to treat injured civilians where we can.

Finally, all parties recognise the value of having strong and supportive communities and the importance of community cohesion. Although Police Scotland has not reported a rise in hate crime in response to the events in the middle east, we must all remain vigilant. There is no space in Scotland for antisemitism or Islamophobia. We must be alive to discrimination and racism in all its forms, and must ensure that there is one Scotland where people of all faiths and none live in peace and harmony and where everyone has the opportunity to flourish.

It is absolutely right to say that there are tremendous organisations of the kind that Ms Forbes has just mentioned that have great experience of dealing with refugees who have arrived here, whether from Ukraine, Yemen or Syria. We have a strong track record in Scotland—the Scottish Government, local authorities and the third sector—of helping people to arrive, seek refuge and find a new home here.

It is absolutely right that we have initiated contact with the UK Government to begin the process of thinking—and we hope, in time, talking, too—about how we might be able to help. However, I reflect that the experience of people in Gaza, not just now but historically, is that their movements have been very restricted in times of peace, and that is the case now in times of war. As we saw on our television screens yesterday, we are only now beginning to see people being allowed out of Gaza.

It is right that we think about everything that we can offer. In addition to people seeking refuge, should they be allowed to leave, a great number of people have suffered injury in Gaza, where hospitals are overwhelmed and have been threatened with closure and, in many cases, ordered to evacuate. Therefore, there might also be a role for us and others to offer help and support to people who require medical treatment—from the national health service but also from military medical services, because there is a great strength in that in the UK.

Therefore, it is right for us to think about all those things, and that is why we have initiated contact with the UK Government. We are still waiting to have substantive discussions about what that might amount to, but we are right to make preparations for the situation of people being able to leave who would seek refuge and have no alternatives with regard to where they were able to go.

I thank Mr Bibby for his introductory words.

Those questions were raised by the First Minister in his discussion with the Prime Minister. At that stage, the UK Government and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office were not clear how many Scots residents were among UK passport holders in Gaza. The UK Government has an idea of the total number of UK passport holders in Gaza, but, because we do not record residency as a matter of course, there is not a definitive answer to that question.

On the UK effort on the ground, I think that I am right in saying that UK nationals, if they have been identified by the FCDO, are being updated. That is complicated by the fact that, as has been widely reported, telecommunications have been subject to interruption. Up until now, because the Rafah border crossing has not been open, people had been informed that they were unable to leave.

Since yesterday, lists have begun to be posted to highlight which nationals are able to leave on a day-to-day basis, so I have no doubt that the FCDO teams on the ground are involved in trying to inform people about how and when they will be able to depart. All that is, of course, complicated by the fact that, although the Israeli military focus is largely on northern Gaza, there are still air strikes and artillery rounds landing in southern Gaza, which makes the journey to Rafah dangerous.

I give a commitment to the committee to share any further update as soon as there is one. We will take the question away and ask for an update, given that there has been a change of circumstance, with people beginning to be able to leave, so that we can best inform you about the FCDO’s take on the process of helping people to get out, how people are being informed about that and how they can be informed if there continues to be breaks in communications. We will make sure that committee members are provided with that update as soon as we get it from the FCDO.