Chamber and committees

It would have been really useful if we had had the police’s response by now.

There is another issue that the committee has been concerned about previously, which was raised in part by Alexander Stewart earlier. I know that the minister, like me, is very keen on Scotland’s involvement in European football competitions at all levels. I have read through the papers and I am aware of the background noise about UEFA and FIFA. It seems to me that those organisations have lost a great of credibility when it comes to how they decide where those competitions take place. I know that it is a take-it-or-leave-it situation, but when I look at the strictures around commercial activities, it also seems that we are obliged to get our legal system, our police and others in position to protect the commercial interests of UEFA.

Our previous discussion was about why street traders, who—as you will know from recent experience—would normally be on the streets surrounding Hampden park, should not be there. I suppose that you have to ask yourself whether you would be upset if that happened, say, in Italy, and people were undermining the profits that UEFA was making, which are then distributed to everyone else. I can understand the point, but I would not be upset about that happening.

You can call the work counterfeit or you can just call it commercial activity. I am sure that you will not go down this direction, minister, but is it not getting to the point at which UEFA and FIFA can dictate a great deal more than they should be able to in deciding who will be selected to host those competitions? Surely, they should not be able to dictate all those things in relation to commercial activity. I understand the case for them doing so with tickets, but not for the rest of it.

I suppose that the alternative would be for UEFA and FIFA to relax a bit and allow local traders to do what they always do. I have no quibbles with the approach to tickets; I understand that point. You made a point about the scenes that can develop if people are turning up and their tickets cannot be used. We saw that and the public disorder that can arise from it outside the Parc de Princes on a recent occasion. However, my question was more to do with whether it would hurt UEFA if Joe Bloggs from Partick went along to Hampden with his stall selling some scarves. I just think that the approach is getting a bit too heavy-handed.

I look to clarify a couple of things.

The convener rightly said that, given the choking of supplies into Gaza and how they are now being funnelled through ineffectively, women and children have been the biggest losers. That is pretty much always the case in such circumstances. However, we do not want to malign the men who are often taking their lives into their hands to get food for their families. We heard from UNRWA that it was mainly men in their 20s, 30s and 40s because the bags that they have to carry cannot be carried by older people. Therefore, it is not necessarily that a bunch of men are out to get supplies for themselves; it is that they do not want to put others in horrendous danger. It is incredible that they should be put in danger for that. Is that your understanding?

I go back to the questions that Stephen Kerr raised on ticket touting. Our original concern was about internet ticket sales and whether people from Scotland would be—rightly—prohibited from touting or exploiting ticket sales elsewhere in the UK. In my view, that concern should be dealt with reciprocally, with the UK Government taking measures to ensure that people elsewhere cannot exploit the Scottish market. We are still waiting on the response from the police as to how that is to be done.

I should say that I have no problem at all with Scotland legislating for itself; we have our own legal system and our own police force, which is not the case in Wales and Northern Ireland.

However, the issue concerns me. I do not mind what the solution is as long as we ensure that the measures are applied equally. For example, we would not want to be in position in which the UK Government could say that you cannot access the ticket market outwith England and Wales but that those in England and Wales can get into the Scottish market, if you follow what I mean. What is your understanding of the police’s position on that?

That raises the question why the Israeli-American regime wants to have young, fighting-age males—as it would call them—trailing around Gaza and being put into particular locations. Leaving that to one side, I want to clarify another point.

I am a little bit confused, as people who are watching the meeting might be, about the issue with the Rafah border. As I understand it, the Egyptian Government is clear that Israel will not allow goods to go through there. UNRWA was absolutely clear with us that Israel will not permit it. The one person who seems to think that that is not the case is Mr Kerr.

I wonder whether you have any other information that confirms that that is the situation—that it is Israel that is preventing access through the Rafah border—or even whether it is the case that Israel has closed the border on its side at Israel’s request. It would be useful to have that, if it is possible to provide that information to the committee. I understand that Israel has made statements to that effect.

Before Mr Kerr interrupts, I wish to say that he regularly gets to ask more questions than anybody else on the committee, so it would be good if I could ask my questions without any interruption from him. The point that I was making, cabinet secretary, was that it would be useful to get any information that you have that evidences that situation in writing, because a member of the committee is saying that that is not the case.

That is up to the convener.

Can I ask my last question before Mr Kerr comes back in once again?

On Mr Bibby’s point about the review of the aid that is currently provided, the committee heard from UNWRA that funding actually is an issue. It was not entirely clear, but I think that it was saying that certain countries have undermined UNWRA by withdrawing funding. Funding is an issue, even for it, despite the fact that it has hundreds of trucks of goods ready to go. What the Scottish Government provides is a pretty small proportion of that. However, if that funding is being reviewed, will the review consider and react to the UK Government’s decision to slash its international aid, or will the Scottish Government’s funding just be done on its own terms, as it was before?

I do not think that it has that influence. That is the point that I am making, minister. We have to take it or leave it. I understand that having the competitions here is a very attractive proposition, but it seems—to me, anyway—that there is an undue use of their influence.

I take the point that supplies might not be getting affected because there is such a backlog, but UNWRA is involved in far more activities than simply providing supplies, and those activities are being undermined by funding cuts.