Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

We need to be cognisant of that, because there is a willingness—and a wish—to have a better relationship with the UK post Brexit, and there is an opportunity to have arrangements in place. Incidentally, plenty of other countries that have this sort of thing too, so there is no reason why the UK would not. However, it will be the subject of negotiation.

At some point—and this is the process that I was explaining—there will be discussions between Nick Thomas-Symonds and his opposite number, Maroš Šefcovic, working towards a meeting in April. That is the timescale where it will become more apparent to us all what the UK Government’s formal position is likely to be on these individual opportunities: Erasmus+, Creative Europe, an agriculture, food and drink agreement, and mobility.

To my mind, there is a sliding scale of likelihood of agreement. After all, the Labour Party declined the European Commission’s previous proposal for a mobility agreement before the then UK Government did. I imagine that there will be less chance of reaching an agreement on that than there might be on an agriculture, food and drink agreement, with Erasmus+ and Creative Europe being somewhere in the middle. I would still encourage the UK Government to adopt all of them as improvements in our relations with the European Union.

I think that those are entirely reasonable questions from Mr Bibby. He will know this because I have given evidence to the committee on this area a number of times—and I made the point twice in my introductory statement, so I will say it a third time. The consistent aim of our position is to align legislation with EU law where that is “meaningful and possible”. That is the caveat that Mr Bibby draws attention to.

One particular and significant reason for having that caveat is that a large part of European legislation has nothing at all to do with Scotland. Why would we use the time of this Parliament and its committees to introduce legislation that relates to things that do not form part of or have any relation to the Scottish agricultural sector or Scottish fisheries? I could go on. That is perhaps the biggest reason why a caveat is in place.

I do not rule out there being areas that come along where there is a solution that is best suited—whether it is short term, medium term or long term—and which is different from that which has been pursued by the European Union. However, it has to be seen in the round, and that is without prejudice to a longer-term decision that would need to be taken on alignment through negotiation at the point of rejoining the European Union.

The other part of Mr Bibby’s question was about which powers could and should be used to retain alignment. This is where I think that we are beginning to better understand that we have a range of ways in which we can remain aligned with the European Union. The impression that was created for some people that the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 is the primary and only way in which one can remain aligned is not correct. The act has been used and will be used, but I think that it is becoming ever-more obvious that there is a wider range of ways in which alignment can be pursued, and they are all subject to oversight by the committee and Parliament. For parliamentarians, it is relatively easy to understand, as it is exactly the same as there being some things that require primary legislation, some things that require secondary legislation and some things that can just be decided on by ministerial direction. There is a range of ways in which that alignment process can be satisfied.

That is where we are in this symbiotic relationship of making sure that the committee is satisfied that we are reporting on the process and the rationale for why we have pursued alignment using a particular route, and for you to get under the rationale to understand whether that is the best way of doing things. I am very open to hearing from colleagues on the committee whether you feel that there are more appropriate ways in which we can do things.

I was having a conversation with officials beforehand about impending legislation that is coming down the track, where we will have to use the act for very particular legal reasons. That makes the point: you would use the act in that case but it would not be necessary to do so in other cases.

I am a glass half-full cabinet secretary, as Stephen Kerr knows. My position is that we are trying to remain focused on remaining aligned with the European Union—

I will draw colleagues’ attention to the prospectus documents that the Scottish Government has published during this session of Parliament, including one on the European Union. It was very well informed by the views of interlocutors in Brussels on a broad range of subjects. If colleagues, or viewers to this evidence session, have not yet read that particular document, I recommend their doing so.

Will the Scottish Government continue to speak with decision makers in the different European institutions about alignment, on what Scotland is planning to do, on what Europe is planning to do and on making sure that European decision makers understand where the balance of opinion is in Scotland? Yes, absolutely.

I remain committed to making sure that the committee receives as much information as you require. If there is a wish that there should be more, or that is should be presented differently, we will look sympathetically at that. We are getting towards the end of the first cycle of reporting to the committee, so we will no doubt have lessons to learn, but I think we are heading in the right direction.

I go back to Mr Brown’s point about scrutiny and how it has operated elsewhere. There is a challenge, which I alluded to earlier in the evidence session, about things relating to Europe being seen by some colleagues as something that happens over there in the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, as was, or indeed in this committee in the Scottish Parliament. We need to understand that things relating to Europe—whether we like it or whether they are aligned—have a relevance for our different committees and for us, as different parliamentarians in different parties. That is true for all of us. I am hoping that our reporting mechanism not only can serve this committee well but can serve parliamentarians more broadly in understanding where things are.

More than I care to remember, Mr Kerr.

I know that Mr Kerr is relatively new to the committee, so perhaps he has not read the reports that have been provided to the committee, as we are now doing—

This is the process that I described at the beginning of the evidence session. A sift takes place in Brussels and in Edinburgh. There was previously a sift—I do not remember whether Mr Kerr was ever a member of the committee concerned, but it was ably advised by four former UK ambassadors and undertook significant work. That has always informed my thinking about this committee, and it is why I have been so keen to make sure that we can find the balance between reporting what is being considered by the Scottish Government and the use of your time and focus on the committee, so that you do not have to spend too much time looking at specific proposals for things, especially those that do not have direct relevance.

If there is a view in the committee, convener, that not enough information is being provided to you about things, I would take that very seriously. We are working very hard to make sure that we get that balance right. However, if the committee wishes to see more material, I am happy to take that away for discussion.

I answered that previously. I think that all levels of government should be open to reform and to considering how we best make decisions, but the idea that, uniquely at a European level, there is legislation and different forms of regulation is one of the canards of the pro-Brexit argument that I do not accept.

We all need to make sure that we legislate proportionately and that regulation is balanced. Regulation is also about safeguards. Whether it is at a European level, a member state level or a sub-member state level, I think that all of us should aim for that.

In my experience of speaking with continental European decision makers, there is tremendous sympathy towards Scotland, as a nation that voted to remain in the European Union in the referendum and that was then taken out of it against the will of the majority of the public and the majority in our Parliament. The default position is that there is a lot of sympathy, and I have heard many people say that, were Scotland to wish to accede to the European Union in its own right and in a constitutionally agreed process, it would be among—if not be—the quickest-ever accessions there have ever been to the European Union.

A significant part of that is because of alignment. More than that, it is the understanding that Scotland would be a significant contributor to the European Union not just because of its important geostrategic or, indeed, economic position, but because it would be a good citizen and one of the most energy-rich parts of Europe, which is another reason that European colleagues are very interested in Scotland’s participation in a wider European context. Of course, that is now mediated through the UK Government, so we are dependent on decision makers in London understanding why hydrogen interconnectivity between Scotland and the European mainland is a priority, and why regulatory agreement between the UK and the European Union on energy matters, including hydrogen, should be a priority. We are still waiting for progress on that.

I have not had a single European decision maker tell me that they are concerned because Scotland has diverged from any European approach in any measure, full stop. I think that the default position is that there is an understanding that the Scottish Government wishes to remain aligned with the European Union and that we wish to see a path back to European Union membership.

There is a very strong and sympathetic feeling among European decision makers towards Scotland. There is also a very strong feeling that they would wish the United Kingdom to return. However, there is also an awareness, given the politics down south where both of the major parties in England are now pro-Brexit, that that is unlikely to happen, even in the medium term.

I have not had any issues that are related to divergence flagged to me as being a concern, because there has not been any issue of significant divergence. There is a warm feeling towards Scotland and a willingness to see Scotland in the EU. I have not heard from a single European decision maker anything that would give me the impression that Scotland would be anything other than very warmly welcomed.