Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would Mr Brown be content if I were to get clarification on the question from the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, so that it can confirm its understanding of how that situation operates?

I do not know the answer to that question, Mr Kerr. I would hope that any Government that is in a position to ameliorate the suffering of people in Gaza could and should play its part in making that possible. However, I will defer and seek some advice on the situation in relation to the Egyptian Government and the Rafah crossing, and I am happy to update you on that.

Oh, a magical piece of paper has just arrived in front of me. I am told that the Israeli Defence Force is stopping the trucks, and not Egypt.

We keep such things under permanent review. Because our budget is limited in terms of scope, one of the challenges that we have is that, when these kinds of significant appeals arise—for example, for emergencies in one part of the world or a situation such as Gaza—they are not something that the Scottish Government has any influence over. The requirements arise at different points, and that is one of the areas where we have to work quite hard in order to understand the relative priorities with regard to the different calls on the humanitarian aid that we have in place.

It is true to say that we are having a look at humanitarian aid. I do not know whether Mr Bibby has any specific points to make on whether more should be done, less should be done or things should be done differently. However, as I am sure that he would expect us to do, we are keeping those things under review.

Mr Kerr had the good fortune yesterday to sit next to his colleague Jamie Halcro Johnston, who asked a question at portfolio question time that enabled me to outline some of the controls that are in place, the grant letters that are issued and the processes that are involved. There is also a transparent reporting mechanism for those international partners. Mr Kerr mentioned the Disasters Emergency Committee and UNRWA. They provide reports about the funds that have been raised after different appeals have been made. I think that I am right in saying that the UNRWA report is on its website, so Mr Kerr and the committee can avail themselves of that.

We are confident, as is the UK Government, that the reporting mechanisms are robust and that the aid that has been provided has been used for the purposes for which it was raised.

I will have to look at the details, Mr Harvie. I do not have them at the forefront of my mind. I will not talk about something that I am not as familiar with as you are.

On the wider question of how we interact with Israel, there are a number of different levels to that. I think that Mr Harvie knows that there are some areas where the Scottish Parliament has an ability to influence the UK Government on its areas of responsibility. That is something that I talked about in my opening statement, and I continue to pursue it. It relates to the export licences to Israel.

Mr Harvie will know that the UK rescinded a number of those licences last year. I have not yet received any details about what those licences were for or which licences remain in place. It troubles me that equipment is still being provided to Israel, which will be used as part of the military system that is engaged in Gaza and, yes, the West Bank, too—we should not forget that, although I know that, this morning, we are talking just about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We do not have transparency about that position, which is why I have written to the UK Government to seek clarification.

There is a series of other attendant and related issues. If we agree that we are not dealing with a state in the established way of doing things, we should be asking ourselves about the other interactions that we have with that state. Mr Harvie will know that the last time that the Scottish Government met with the state of Israel, to tell it how unhappy the Scottish Government was about what is going on, we told it that that would be the last time that we would meet it until it stopped what it was doing. Mr Harvie will know that; it received quite a lot of publicity at the time. Therefore, we are no longer dealing directly with Israel on these questions.

With regard to trade, I think that I am right to say that the United Kingdom Government has suspended its free trade agreement negotiations with the state of Israel, and I think that that action is correct. On whether there is a wider range of trade-related issues that could and should be looked at, Mr Harvie might draw my attention to the fact that the Government of Ireland is introducing legislation in relation to trade from illegal settlements in the occupied territories. If he were to ask me about that, I would say to him that I have been looking at that but that my best understanding is that that is a reserved issue because it relates to direct trade matters. However, I assure Mr Harvie that I remain open to looking at further ways in which Scotland can use its limited powers but also its voice in calling out Israel for what it is doing. I am perfectly content to look at a range of ways in which the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament could make our voices heard and make our moral outrage about what is happening clear.

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.