Chamber and committees

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.

The offer of help and support for potential refugees from the conflict was outlined in a detailed letter from Shirley-Anne Somerville to the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, with a view to initiating such conversations—to get officials from the Scottish Government and the Home Office, and others, into discussions to begin the process of considering how one might manage and best do such a thing.

Mr Cameron is absolutely right. There is a context, in as much as we have experience in all that, which is a good thing. However, every situation that involves the arrival of refugees is, by its very nature, different. One of the big differences between this conflict and the conflict in Ukraine is that, in Ukraine, people who were living in non-occupied territories had a way out. That is not the case for people in Gaza—they are not able to leave. Nobody, therefore, anticipates any sudden and dramatic movement of people. In fact, over the years and decades, Governments in the region have been clear that they do not want the displacement of Palestinians outside the west bank and the Gaza strip. We are therefore right to say to colleagues in UK Government departments that we wish to begin those technical discussions. I hope that that offer will be taken up and that those discussions can take place, because they should take place.

In the immediate period, given the scale of casualties and the inability of the health system in Gaza to deal with them, it has to be a priority for everybody to try to help and support, in the first instance, the Egyptian authorities and health system to treat the most seriously injured casualties who cannot be treated in Gaza. The Egyptians have set up an emergency medical facility very close to the Rafah border crossing to treat injured people close to where they are, but there may be very serious cases where advanced medical intervention could be better provided by other countries, which might include our own. In addition to any preparations for helping refugees, we should be alive to that, because we have an excellent health service with considerable experience. We should do our best to help people who are in need of medical support, as well as those who seek refuge.

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.

The first step is to have intense points of contact with both communities. As members will be aware, the First Minister has visited the synagogue in Giffnock and has also been to a number of mosques. Initiatives are being supported via Interfaith Scotland to bring together not just the Jewish and Muslim faith leaders but those of Christian and other denominations. We are communicating with them intensively to work out what can be done.

As I have raised with my colleagues, I am mindful that various faith communities’ high and holy days are approaching in the weeks and months ahead. We must ensure that our communities are able to celebrate important days in their religious calendars without any fear or concern. We must therefore ensure that we talk to them as much as we can do—as a Government, but also as parliamentarians and community leaders in our own right. I look to all committee members, and all colleagues across the parties in the Scottish Parliament, to play a role in that. Notwithstanding the severity of the situation, and the challenges that we know people face, we must remain focused on doing everything that we can to maintain the best community relations that we can achieve. Sadly, current international examples illustrate such relations being tested very sorely.