It is an honour to close the debate in support of the motion that was lodged by the First Minister. On behalf of the Scottish Government, I accept the amendment by the Scottish Labour Party.

I begin by welcoming the widespread consensus that we have heard so much about this afternoon. Donald Cameron was absolutely right to pay tribute to the First Minister’s measured and eloquent speech. I am sure that I speak for all when I say that we were delighted by the news of the return of his mother-in-law and father-in-law, who have been able to return from Gaza.

I also reflect on the specific consensus that we have heard from the front benches and across the chamber in condemning Hamas and its atrocities and hostage taking. There has been a welcome for emergency funding from the Scottish Government and the UK Government. There has been condemnation from all sides of the loss of civilian life. There has been support from all sides for a two-state solution. There has been opposition from all sides to antisemitism and Islamophobia.

Anas Sarwar was absolutely right to call for a ceasefire today, just as it was right to do so last week, the week before that and, indeed, last month, which is when the United Nations first called for one. Alex Cole-Hamilton was absolutely right to promote consensus where we can, and Ross Greer was absolutely right to stress that all human life is equal.

We have heard some very powerful speeches this afternoon. We have heard from Kaukab Stewart and Meghan Gallacher. Who could not be moved in hearing the names of Israeli victims taken hostage? It took Meghan Gallacher five minutes to read the names of 87 of the 240 hostages, all of them loved and missed. She did not have time but, if she had, it would have taken her four and a half hours to read the 5,500 names of dead Palestinian children.

We also heard very powerful speeches from Bill Kidd and Pauline McNeill, to whom I pay tribute. We go back a long way, Pauline McNeill and I, back to our National Union of Students days. She was on this issue then, as she is now, and she was absolutely right in everything that she said. She talked about a physician performing an amputation on his own child. What she did not mention was that he did it without being able to use an anaesthetic. That is unimaginable. His child then died. It is unimaginable.

We heard powerful speeches from Fulton MacGregor and Keith Brown, who made a compelling case for a ceasefire. That was a compelling case that could have been made only by somebody with military experience, as he has, as a former Royal Marine. We heard powerful speeches from Carol Mochan and from Ivan McKee, who quoted Holocaust survivors appealing for peace. Neil Bibby talked about the importance of securing a ceasefire from all sides, and he is absolutely correct. That is difficult—for many, it is unimaginable—but that is not a reason not to work towards a ceasefire. It is a counsel of despair to suggest otherwise.

Jackson Carlaw was typically gracious and made a nuanced contribution, as I always expect of him. He reflected on the profound impact on the Jewish community in his constituency and, indeed, everywhere. That stood in stark contrast to one of his colleagues, who is sadly not in the Parliament today, who suggested on social media that the issue does not affect people here. As we have heard today, the issue really matters to people here. It really matters to Jewish and Israeli Scots and to Muslim and Palestinian Scots. It really matters to people right across Scotland who care deeply about humanity and decency, and it matters to all of us who care about communities and our solidarity with them.

The First Minister was able to see that when he visited the Giffnock synagogue, and I saw it when I visited the Edinburgh synagogue. I saw it only last week in St Mary’s Episcopal cathedral in Edinburgh at the united for peace event, which was hosted by the Edinburgh Interfaith Association and which was standing room only. There were people from Christian denominations, there were Muslim and Jewish faith leaders and there were Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, humanists and many others. People do really care here, and it does really matter—it matters that we discuss this issue.

Then we come to the issue where there is not agreement among all members across the chamber, although I venture to suggest that we will see later that there is overwhelming support for a ceasefire.

For the record, we should remind ourselves that United Nations secretary general Antonio Guterres called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire on 24 October, nearly one month ago. On 26 October, the United Nations General Assembly voted for an immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce. One hundred and twenty countries were for and 14 were against. Forty-five abstained, including the United Kingdom, to its shame. France, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland—I could go on—voted for.

Not only members of the United Nations but some of our most valued third sector and charitable organisations have joined calls for a ceasefire: Amnesty International, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, CARE International UK, Christian Aid UK, Comic Relief, the International Rescue Committee, Islamic Relief, Mercy Corps, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, Oxfam, Save the Children, the United Nations Association of the United Kingdom, War Child UK and War on Want—I could go on.

Sadly, given the inability of the Conservatives to support a ceasefire in their amendment, we will not vote in favour of it.

I thank colleagues very much for their speeches in the debate, which is on an issue that is urgent and relevant to us all. We have all watched in horror the catastrophic humanitarian situation unfolding in the middle east. To prevent further deaths, the bombing and the rocketing must stop. Humanitarian and medical facilities must be protected and civilians must be given unrestricted access to the basic necessities of life, wherever they are.

We again condemn the abhorrent acts committed by Hamas, recognise Israel’s right to defend its citizens from terror and call for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. However, we also continue to call for all parties to adhere to international law, which requires the protection of civilians, particularly children, and affords a special status to hospitals and humanitarian actors. The taking of hostages, indiscriminate bombing of civilian infrastructure, intentional starvation and forced displacement of a population are prohibited under the Geneva convention.

The bombardment and siege of Gaza has reportedly killed more than 13,000 people, injured more than 27,000 and displaced more than 1.7 million people. I am particularly concerned for Gaza’s 1 million children, as all parents are. As was highlighted in a resolution that the UN Security Council passed last week, on average, one child is killed and two are injured every 10 minutes. That turns Gaza into what the UN secretary general has described as “a graveyard for children”.

In his opening speech, the First Minister noted the increasingly dire situation in Gaza’s hospitals, where doctors are trying to save lives without access to electricity, anaesthesia and other basic medical supplies. The largest hospital, the Al-Shifa hospital, has been described by the World Health Organization as a death zone following fatal air strikes and intensive gunfights over the past week. Only yesterday, the head of the WHO said that he is appalled by an attack on the Indonesian hospital that resulted in 12 deaths and dozens of injuries.

Innocent Palestinians continue to be caught up in the fight between Israel and Hamas, a fight from which they have no escape. According to the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, hundreds of thousands of people remain in the north of Gaza as they are unwilling or unable to move to the south.

From the start of the conflict, Scotland has been clear that we stand ready to provide support where we can. We have committed £750,000 to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency’s flash appeal, which will support the food, health, shelter and protection needs of people seeking safety. The quantity of humanitarian supplies that are getting into Gaza is a tiny fraction of what is needed, and essential electricity and water services have been cut off.

Driven by the ultimate goal of saving lives, and in line with the motion for the debate, we once again echo the United Nations secretary general’s call for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, an end to the siege on Gaza, unimpeded access for humanitarian aid and all parties to abide by international law. We call on all members of the international community, including the United Kingdom Government, to do everything that they can to protect against violations of international law and to facilitate the political solution that is needed to bring peace, security and stability to the region.

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.

Thank you very much. On Europe day on 9 May, I reiterated the Scottish Government’s commitment to its EU alignment policy and to providing further information to support the Parliament’s scrutiny role on the subject.

Government policy has not changed. Even in the face of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, with its divergent and deregulatory intent, we will continue to seek to align with the EU where appropriate. That means where it is possible and where it is meaningful for us to do so. The standards that are set by the EU will continue to influence many of the policy frameworks and initiatives that we develop domestically. I am pleased to provide evidence to the committee.

The new annual report improves the transparency of ministerial decision making and increases the amount of information that is provided. The reporting includes our draft annual report on use of the power to align, as required by the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. The report was laid in the Parliament on 31 October.

As the committee knows, since your response to last year’s draft report on the continuity act, officials have been working to expand and centralise the process of managing and sharing information regarding alignment decisions. I thank parliamentary clerks for working jointly with my officials so that we can provide the information that is needed by the Parliament to carry out its scrutiny function.

My letter of 31 October to the committee confirms the details of the extended approach that has been implemented starting in July. Our expanded reporting demonstrates the complexity of taking alignment decisions, and the need for a proportionate approach in that alignment is not always possible as Scotland is no longer part of the structures to which much of EU law relates. We are also constrained by the limitations of the devolution settlement and, of course, the willingness of the United Kingdom Government to respect it.

I would like to mention the independent research that was commissioned by the committee and carried out by Queen’s University Belfast. I agree with its core findings that

“the Scottish Government commitment to align with developments in EU law has largely been upheld”,

and that there has been no

“significant divergence between Scots Law and EU Law”.

I also agree with the report’s conclusion that minor technical divergence will accumulate over time.

Mindful of that, the Scottish Government’s approach includes careful consideration of on-going technical developments in the EU, including via tertiary legislation as well as other instruments. That is illustrated in our expanded annual reporting, although this year’s report only reflects the part of the year during which our updated processes have been in operation.

As outlined in my letter from 3 September, when Scottish Government legislation is laid in the Scottish Parliament, information will now be included in policy notes and relevant memoranda for bills to assist with scrutiny. In the future, our reports will cover a full year and will be based on the same reporting period as that of the continuity act; namely, from 1 September to 31 August.

I would welcome discussion between officials regarding the feasibility of sharing the tracker material that is produced by Dr Lisa Whitten in a timeframe that would allow us to co-ordinate the consideration of its conclusions in our analysis of current EU proposals.

I hope that our revised reporting and these comments are helpful in considering how the Scottish Government is implementing its alignment policy, and I look forward to your questions.

Yes.

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.

My default position is that we should before we should not—if that makes sense. The policy of the Government is that we wish to see Scotland rejoin the European Union as quickly as possible. I look forward to publishing the Scottish Government’s paper on this very subject tomorrow. Anybody who understands how European Union accession works knows that there is a requirement for candidate countries to show that they are ready to join, which, in significant part, is because there is an alignment between candidate countries and the standards of the European Union. Our remaining aligned with the European Union is key to the speediest rejoining of the European Union, which is our stated aim.

My position is that, wherever we can, we should be seeking to align, and there needs to be a very good reason why not. Ms Forbes makes the point: in significant part, it is very much a matter of common sense.

I will refer to colleagues about this later, but I am not aware where there are issues that may have been on the cusp, but there is nothing at the forefront of my mind that falls into that category. Will there be such issues? No doubt. I am not aware of any that are of particular import at the present time, however.