Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will choose to disagree agreeably with Mr Kerr. We take a different view. Mr Kerr is a Brexiteer. He does not believe in the European Union. He does not want to be part of the European Union. I do not share that view. I wish us to be part of the EU. Of course, should there be a willingness to reform in the EU, the United Kingdom, Scotland, or, indeed, local government—well, that is what we do in politics, but I do not call into question the European Union or our wish to remain aligned. I pray in aid the fact that a majority of people not only in Scotland but now across the United Kingdom regret the Brexit referendum result and would wish to rejoin the European Union.

That was a statement. That was not a question.

I take the opportunity to formally welcome Stephen Kerr and Patrick Harvie to the committee.

Other members will have heard me say previously that, because of my membership of the European Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons for the best part of a decade, I genuinely understand why it is important that relevant committees have access to the information that they need to have access to in order to perform their scrutiny function.

Since I began my conversation with the committee, I have said repeatedly, and I say so again today, that I am extremely keen that my officials work with the committee clerks to make sure that we have the appropriate reporting mechanism in place that allows the committee to do its job and that gives me the assurance that we are reporting in the most appropriate way—not only in a way that the committee would wish, but in a way that is proportionate from the point of view of officials’ time. I think that I am right in saying that we are probably in a good place in getting that balance right. The taking of a proportionate approach in that regard is one aspect.

The other aspect relates to the need to understand the mechanism by which an assessment can be made of the relevance of any particular legislative or broader policy proposal emanating from the European Union. The Government goes through a series of steps and stages to work that out.

In Scotland house in Brussels, we have our own tracking mechanisms to see what is emanating from European institutions and to work out whether that will have an impact on Scottish legislation, the Scottish economy and so on. That early reporting is then subject to a degree of validation in Scotland in the Scottish Government. At that point—maybe we will have an opportunity to come back to this, because it is an important point—individual cases are shared with the different parts of the Scottish Government that have responsibility for policy areas.

The next stage involves understanding the possible impacts of such changes on, for example, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, our international obligations and trade and co-operation agreement constraints. An assessment will be undertaken of the proposals, which will be published, and recommendations will be made to ministers on the alignment issues, whether that is direct legislative alignment or broader alignment on policy and the potential outcomes.

What are the risks in all of that? I am reading Mr Stewart’s mind. The first thing to say is that this whole process is still relatively new, so it is important to have an open mind in seeking to understand whether it is working as well as we—and you—would wish it to. I think that a balance has been struck, as we see the ebb and flow of how much emanates from decision-making bodies in the European Union.

As the evidence that Dr Whitten has given to the committee suggests, if there is a risk in relation to alignment, it is thought to be most likely to arise as a result of legislation at a UK or a Scottish level that would lead to a change in things. I do not think that there is any tremendous evidence of that taking place yet. Is there a risk that that might happen? Of course there is, but given that it is the position of the Scottish Government and, now, the UK Government to try to remain aligned with the EU, I think that that risk is reducing.

It has been put to me in conversation with officials that there is a definite sense in Whitehall that a brake is being applied to any potential risk of divergence. That can be seen very clearly in the current example of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. I will certainly be taking a closer look at that bill as a Scottish Government minister, and perhaps the committee will, too, because it impacts on devolved areas of responsibility.

Another risk relates to whether Scottish interests, as expressed by the Government or by the Parliament more generally, are listened to. I hope that they will be. Officials are working proactively with their colleagues in the UK Government to make sure that they know what any such risks might be. The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill is an emerging example. A UK legislative proposal has been made. Might that have an impact on alignment? Yes, it might. Are we part of a process? We are trying to be part of a process, in order to make sure that there is no disbenefit.

The process must, surely, be about more than risk. It should be about opportunity, should it not? I hope that we all want the best form of regulation. I know that one person’s red tape is another person’s safeguard—I understand that. There is a balance to be struck here, but I think that there is an opportunity to maintain high standards and to maintain our democratic interests, as a Government and as a Parliament, by making sure that the new process works for us, and through our democratic institutions, as well as possible.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you on the subject of European Union alignment and our latest reports to the Scottish Parliament.

Scotland voted to remain in the European Union and we continue to share the European Union’s values and respect the high regulatory standards from which we previously benefited. Our EU alignment policy aims to act as a brake on regulatory divergence by aligning with the European Union where it is meaningful and possible for us to do so. As a result, standards set by the European Union will continue to influence many of the policy frameworks and initiatives that we are developing domestically, which will achieve practical outcomes for the people of Scotland. Seeking to align with key pieces of EU legislation supports our businesses by providing the consistency, transparency and certainty that they need, and it reduces the burden posed by different sets of rules.

As I said in my supporting letter of 31 October, I extend my thanks to Dr Whitten for the Parliament’s EU law tracker report. The EU law tracker provides valuable support, insight and reassurance that the approach that we have taken to monitoring and reporting on our delivery of EU alignment is the right one.

Our reporting process is now maturing and we have made further changes to support transparency, as suggested by the committee. I would like to thank the committee for its collaborative approach to this important area of work. The expansion of our annual reporting highlights the complexity of taking alignment decisions and the need for a proportionate approach, as not all EU law has direct relevance for Scotland.

We hold strongly to the view that remaining aligned with the largest single market in the world is the correct policy. Scottish businesses overwhelmingly provided the same view to the committee in the committee’s recent inquiry into the implementation of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement. The British Chambers of Commerce has also called for

“as much alignment as possible”

and has called for the UK to make following EU regulations the default position.

The previous UK Government caused significant legislative and regulatory uncertainty in its pursuit of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and so-called Brexit benefits. Throughout, the Scottish Government has consistently aimed to align its legislation with EU law where it is possible and meaningful to do so, from banning problematic single-use plastic items to improving the quality of drinking water and considering improvements to waste water treatment.

I am pleased that the current UK Government is looking to improve its relationship with the European Union on trade and other issues. That is likely to require a degree of alignment with EU law. I am pleased, too, that the current UK Government has now expressed a desire to avoid divergence. That will bring further benefits to the Scottish people and to Scottish businesses.

That confirms that our approach has been the right one all along for our people and our businesses, and I will be encouraging the UK Government to think positively and creatively about this. Thank you very much. I welcome your questions.

I am glad that your visit to Brussels was so successful. It underlines the importance of having regular contact between the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and European institutions—whether that is the commission or the Parliament—and also having an on-going dialogue with colleagues working at Scotland house, which is the eyes and ears of a range of Scottish institutions. The then Conservative Government had tremendous foresight in establishing Scotland house in Brussels and, since then, Scotland house has shown its worth. It is an important part of our monitoring of developments in the European Union.

On the specific question about what I now prefer to call an agriculture, food and drinks agreement—because I think that when we talk about a veterinary agreement or a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, it is jargon that is often heard in a European context but is not particularly well understood—having an agreement that relates to agriculture, food and drink would have a profoundly positive impact on the Scottish economy and the Scottish agricultural sector, and would also be of benefit to the rest of Great Britain and to European exporters.

That is not just the view of the Scottish Government. It is now the view of the UK Government as well. I welcome the fact that the new UK Government, at least rhetorically, is in exactly the same place as us in terms of a reset of relations with the EU and on securing an agreement that would cover this area of agriculture, food and drink, which I think was a manifesto commitment.

If committee members have not already read it, I would like to draw their attention to a Scottish Government document on the issue entitled, “Trading Arrangements with the EU: the case for a comprehensive veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement after Brexit”. The document has details about why that should be so, including points around what is known as dynamic alignment, which is about maintaining standards in line with the European Union.

The document has been shared with colleagues in Brussels and with the UK Government and it is part of on-going conversations with UK colleagues. We have a forthcoming interministerial group meeting with the UK Government and other devolved Administrations, where this will form part of the conversation.

There is an on-going dialogue between the UK Government and the European Commission about this area and other areas where a reset might be meaningful. I think that that has been a matter of discussion in the chamber, as have the opportunities around rejoining Erasmus+, of Creative Europe, and of a mobility agreement, especially for younger people, in a European context.

This potential agreement, which would impact so much on agriculture, food and drink, is one that we will be raising again. It is a subject that the relevant UK minister and Maroš Šefcovic, who is the relevant commissioner who is dealing with these matters, will be discussing. I believe that I am right in saying that there is a summit meeting to discuss this in April next year.

We have an interministerial group meeting with the UK Government shortly—in early December, I believe. That meeting will happen in advance of the meeting between the UK Government and the European Union, so we will take that opportunity to underline our support for such an agreement.

I totally agree with Mr Harvie. Because the UK, and Scotland as a constituent part of it, had been in the European Union since 1973, there was a massive alignment of policies and legislation between the UK and what was at the time European Economic Community, now the European Union. We still remain very aligned.

Now that a hard Brexit has been foisted upon us, there has been the risk of significant divergence being sought; indeed, it was the position of the last UK Government. Whether one views it as positive or negative, there was a view that that was the rationale of Brexit—that is, the ability to make very different policies. There was a sense that that was an aim in itself, although the U-turn on retained EU law proved that the aspiration was not as simple as the rhetoric might have been.

However, for those of us who would prefer us to be in the European Union—that is, the majority of people in Scotland and, as has been shown, the UK—one has to understand the route by which one would do so. I am not talking about the politics of the stage at which we can reapply for EU membership; I am talking about the understanding that, when one joins, one does so on the basis of adopting the acquis communautaire—the body of law of the European Union. If we are as aligned as we are—or not, though we have not significantly diverged—-it will be significantly easier for us to rejoin than it will be for other countries that have never been in the European Union and which are not aligned at all. For those of us who support a future for this country in the European Union, alignment is really important.

Indeed, that is one of the driving rationales behind alignment. Yes, it is about maintaining the highest standards; yes, it is about maintaining certainty for business, exporters and so on; and yes, it matters for transparency and democratic oversight. However, it is also the route back to rejoining the European Union for this country, and I very much hope that that will happen as soon as possible.

My preference would be for Scotland to be a member state of the European Union, so that we had Scottish ministers in the Council of Ministers, a Scottish nominee to the Commission and Scottish representation in the European Parliament. All of those would be good things, but I wish, too, that the UK would be part of the European Union. It would be in all of our interests for it to be so.

Alignment represents a pragmatic approach in that respect. However, as Mr Harvie has outlined, it comes with the potential prize of making our membership of the European Union again a much easier prospect than it would be for countries that are not, in a significant way, aligned with the EU and its legislation.

I hope that I am pragmatic, although I would leave that to other committee members to decide.

We are pragmatic. I do not want to repeat the different stages of the process by which an assessment is made of particular proposals—

In fairness to the new Government, it is a new Government. That is the first thing to say about the UK level of governance. We also need to be aware that the membership of the new European Commission was approved—I think that I am right in saying this—only yesterday, so it has not even got on to its future legislative programme. Because of the European Parliament elections and the formation of a new Commission, there has not been a lot emanating from Brussels.

My answer to Mr Stewart is that proposals will be made, and we will deal with them at face value. We will work with colleagues at a UK Government and a European level as well as we can to make sure that we pursue our avowed aim of remaining aligned with the European Union.

We are making sure that that aim is understood right across Government, by which I mean the Scottish Government. Historically, there has always been a risk that a European issue has been seen as something that needs to be dealt with by the people who deal with Europe, whether that means this committee or, previously, the European Scrutiny Committee at Westminster or a Europe minister or a minister for external affairs. In talking about different policy proposals, as a Government, we are committed to making sure that individual cabinet secretaries who have responsibility for different areas—agriculture and fisheries, justice and the environment are three areas where there is a particular European locus to proposals—understand why those matters are relevant right across Government. That is why we have been holding interministerial groups. I have been holding bilateral meetings with my colleagues in the Scottish Government to explain all of that.

Of course, it is for Parliament to make a decision about the extent to which the scrutiny of individual proposals is undertaken by subject committees of the Scottish Parliament or by this committee. I gently put down a marker that, where proposals have a particular locus in the environment, agriculture and fisheries or justice, because it will be my colleagues who have a responsibility for that at a policy level, they will probably be best placed to answer questions, whether here or in other committees. I am always happy to come to this committee, as Mr Stewart knows.

Proposals will emanate not only from the European Union, but from the UK Government. The examples that Mr Stewart gave of suboptimal relations are totally avoidable. I look back at the extensive efforts that I have made since 2021 to have good working relationships with colleagues in London and in Brussels to make sure that there is no reason to fall out about things for any reason other than that one has a difference of principle on a particular proposal. Administrative relationships between officials and colleagues in UK Government departments and in Brussels should be good and those channels should be open. I think that they are.

We await the reset of the UK Government and what that will mean in concrete terms. We can be pretty confident that that will involve a proposal for an agreement on agriculture and food and drink. I am very confident that the UK Government will wish to make progress on that. That raises questions for us, because a lot of that area is devolved. Therefore, how will that work?

On the direction of travel, I am as certain as I can be that that will be coming down the track. At this stage, we do not know how complex a legislative proposal that will be. In fairness, we cannot know that, because the UK Government will still be working out its preferred route for making such an agreement. I think that that is definitely coming, and we will need to have a think about how we make sure that devolved interests are part of that process.

There are other potential areas for agreement with the European Union before we get into what is described as “cherry picking”, which is unlikely to be welcomed by the EU. It is clear that the potential to rejoin Erasmus+ is on the table. We know that the opportunity to rejoin the creative Europe programme is on the table, and we know—because the Commission proposed it—that there is the opportunity for a mobility agreement, particularly for younger people. Such an agreement would be important in general, but it would be of particular importance in specific areas of the economy or cultural life—for example, in relation to touring for creatives and artists.

That dialogue will continue with the UK Government, and I will be impressing on it—I encourage colleagues to do likewise—the desirability of reaching such agreements. In that respect, we can perhaps be inspired by the most recent Conservative UK Government in reaching agreement with the European Union on the horizon programme, which I was very pleased to see. If it was possible to do that on the horizon programme, I hope that the UK Government could see its way to doing that on Erasmus+, creative Europe and mobility.

First, on an agriculture, food and drink agreement, that will, because it will relate to border controls, necessitate what is known as dynamic alignment. Therefore, there will need to be common rules, which I think would be a good thing, as does this Government. Having an understanding of that is important for those who are supporters of Brexit; Mr Kerr, perhaps, might not welcome such a thing. It is, though, the difference between a hard Brexit and a less-hard Brexit.

If you work in an exporting industry or in agriculture or you operate in the food and drink sector—and we understand how absolutely vital that is to the Scottish economy; indeed, it is among the UK’s biggest exports—you want the access to the European single market that such an agreement will give. What it means, in effect, is a massive reduction in the necessity for border controls. If you are trying to export shellfish, seafood or anything that is fresh, where time is of the essence, the ability to export quickly is absolutely key. We know from a lot of feedback from business in Scotland—and I am sure you will have heard it in your evidence sessions, too—that large parts of the economy have basically given up exporting to the single market, because of the complications that are now involved. Therefore, anything that we can do to obviate the problem should be explored.

In my view, there is a much better solution, which is being in the European single market and being a member state in the European Union. That is what everybody else in the EU thinks is the best thing, and I agree with them. However, if in the meantime we had an agreement that reduced all the problems of exporting—I was going to say “and all controls”, but it will not be all controls; instead, I should say for the record “significant aspects of controls”—such an agreement would be welcomed.

Of course, there will be different negotiating positions, but we are talking about existing schemes. Erasmus+ is an existing scheme that we are not a part of; Creative Europe is an existing scheme that we are not a part of; and the European single market is a product of treaty agreement between member states. The idea that a UK Government would seek to renegotiate unilaterally all those areas of agreement between European countries is just not realistic, nor do I think that it is particularly sensible. Are there individual areas where there can be negotiations on things? No doubt there are.

I also imagine that Mr Harvie and colleagues who were in Brussels were probably hearing a little bit of encouragement from European colleagues to say what the UK actually wants.