Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Cameron is describing that in his own terms, which he is perfectly entitled to do, but it seems to me to be an excellent example—as was the previous example from Mr Ruskell, who has an interest in environmental legislation—of where my Government colleagues who have a responsibility in rural affairs or the environment portfolio will be pleased to answer questions about those areas.

As someone who has worked very closely on European Union-related issues as a parliamentarian since 2001, I have always taken the view that there is a danger that things relating to the EU are viewed by Government in general as being an issue that is dealt with by European colleagues, as opposed to understanding that those are central issues right across Government.

That is why, to mirror the previous point, I am keen that colleagues on other committees take as close an interest in those issues as you do, convener, although it is your business to work out how you will impress that on them. That is not to say that you cannot do so as a committee. We need to know more about and be more conscious of those examples now that we have been able to identify in the report that they have happened, are happening or will happen, whether they are on the environmental or rural side of things. That is absolutely right.

Yes, we will do that, and we will report back to you.

I think that we have to use every route in that we can. Many of you will have met Martin Johnson and members of the team at Scotland House, who are very capable at reaching legislators, and we are also in the fortunate position of having a friends of Scotland group in the European Parliament, which goes across the mainstream political families. If members want to speak to colleagues in the European People’s Party, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats or the Greens and the European Free Alliance, there are routes in through the European Parliament and the European Commission. Indeed, it is one of the reasons for our having conversations with other Governments at federal and state level. We want open channels of communication, so that if there are things that we should raise, we will raise them.

Not being present is a problem, and none of that is a substitute for doing what every other normal country does, which is sit on the Council of Ministers and take part in the discussions about what is happening in the European Union, have a nominated commissioner sit on the Commission of the European Union and, indeed, have our full complement of members in the European Parliament making the laws that will have an impact.

The only way to do that is to be a member state of the European Union. Sitting outside in the cold, which is where we are, means that we have to find workarounds, because Brexit has brought about a circumstance in which we are no longer part of the decision-making structures of the EU. Therefore, we will try our best, but there is no substitute for the proper way of doing it.

Yes, absolutely. Perhaps there will be examples where one does not agree, but Mr Bibby’s point is a good illustration of the need for an awareness of where those things come about, which will enable members to question me or colleagues about the thought process that has brought us to the stage of saying that we are or are not able to proceed with things. The point is well made. That is why we are doing this. It is about being as well sighted as we can be in the best, most timeous way, and then being able to ask those very questions. I totally agree.

Hear, hear.

I will ask colleagues to follow up, but I will make a general point first. Imagine that we were in a parallel world where the REUL legislation, as it had previously been proposed, had gone through. We remember that the sunsetting arrangements had been brought in. No doubt were we still in that universe, we would have been sitting here talking about many, many SIs and SSIs. Now, at least, we are in the more fortunate position that we are not doing so.

There is a lot of reflection about those sorts of issues. It has been highlighted to me that there have been three recent cases where people have suggested that the matter may be relevant in relation to employment law or equality law or, indeed, in relation to Rwanda, which is quite current. However, it is not. Do David Maclennan or Greig Walker want to add anything on the specifics of the measure?

I am content with the statement that I outlined to the committee. Thank you, convener.

Motion moved,

That the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee recommends that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Consequential Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 [draft] be approved.—[Angus Robertson]

Motion agreed to.

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 would have to discuss the detail of which organisations we have had and continue to have links with beyond the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which is the principal agency for the international community.

We all appreciate that, because of the extreme nature of the circumstance and the extreme distress in which people in Gaza find themselves, it is primarily UNRWA, the UN agency, that has the capability. We should put on the record that UNRWA is also having to pay an incredibly high price for its efforts on the ground. I think that I am right in saying that, since the beginning of the recent conflict, more than 70 members of UNRWA staff have died trying to maintain the places of safety that they have and to get supplies to the warehouses to be distributed. That is why our principal focus is on UNRWA, which has launched a flash appeal.

However, we will keep under constant review our relationship with other charities and third sector organisations, in particular those with which we have an established relationship. We will try to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent as well as it can possibly be spent in such circumstances. I am sure that people will welcome the fact that we and others are doing what we can to support the UN and other agencies to do what they can on the ground to help people who do not have food or drinking water, who often do not have shelter and many of whom now do not have hope. We need to do everything that we possibly can and we intend to continue doing so.

The First Minister has spoken in person to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and Lord Ahmad, who is Minister of State for the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and United Nations, about those questions. The committee and the country are aware that the First Minister has family who are trapped in Gaza, together with others who have a connection to Scotland, the UK and other countries.

There has been correspondence with the UK Government, and there has been correspondence between the Scottish Government and the Israeli embassy and with the Palestinian representative office in the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government’s positions in relation to the unconditional condemnation of Hamas, the right of Israel to self-defence, the support of international humanitarian law, the call for a ceasefire and the call for the support of international organisations to provide necessary aid to the people of Gaza have all been communicated to all those who I mentioned, and we will continue to do so.