Official Report 764KB pdf
A warm welcome back to everyone. Our third agenda item is to take evidence on a series of reports regarding the Scottish Government’s commitment to align with the European Union where appropriate. The reports include a draft of the Scottish Government’s 2024 annual report on the use of the keeping pace power within the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021.
We are joined by Angus Robertson MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture. With him from the Scottish Government are George Macpherson, who is the head of EU policy and alignment, and Lorraine Walkinshaw, who is from the legal directorate. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.
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.
Thank you very much, and thank you for acknowledging the committee-commissioned EU tracker and the work of Dr Whitten, which has been very helpful to this committee and to other parliamentary committees too.
The committee visited Brussels recently to present our TCA report. As we approach the review of that, the EU institutions that we spoke with were very happy to consider proposals for a UK veterinary agreement, but on the basis of full regulatory alignment in the areas covered by the agreement. What is the Scottish Government’s view on how that might work, including the role of this Parliament in scrutinising the necessary legislation to comply with regulatory alignment and the full agreement?
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.
10:30The 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.
Thank you. We move to questions, starting with Mr Stewart.
In your letter and your opening statement, you mentioned the “proportionate approach” that you are taking to EU alignment and the fact that you are not being complacent in guarding against any future risks. In that respect, it is vital that records are kept and information is shared, and our tracker report has identified some of that. What do you see those risks as being? Will you expand on some of the risks that we now face, in comparison with those that we thought that we might face when we started the process?
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.
You identify the opportunities that might arise; it is undoubtedly the case that a number of opportunities might arise. Whether there will be conflict in the future depends on where the risks are and where there is potential for divergence. In the past, we have heard about power grabs and things being done in a confrontational way. A problem could still potentially arise if there was such a difficulty, given the amount of red tape and bureaucracy involved, to which you referred.
As we look to improve the situation—you have identified that you believe that the new UK Government might want to be more aligned with the EU than the previous one—what progress do you think that we will see in the next 12 months or whatever?
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.
10:45
Thank you, cabinet secretary. I acknowledge the significant progress that has been made by the clerks and the officials in getting the data that we need, and I thank them for that work.
I have a caveat. As someone who attends meetings of the Conveners Group, I know that lots of legislation comes through in the latter part of a session. Therefore, it might be challenging for the Parliament from a committee workload point of view to have the capacity to pick up extra bits of work. It is worth putting that on the record, too.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I will keep this part brief, but you have talked about negotiating positions on a veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and youth mobility and whether there is room for an improved position between the UK and the EU. On our visit to Brussels, I picked up some views from the EU perspective to the effect that, as one person put it, “You will have to accept every dot and comma of regulatory alignment”, while from a UK perspective, I picked up the expectation that the Europeans will, of course, give us what we want, because it is in their interests to, really. Is it your view that the negotiating positions are naturally going to begin at those extremes and that the potential for something that is agreeable, even to a pro-Brexit UK Government, is simply a matter of political will?
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.
More than a little.
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.
In that case, I want to ask about the Scottish Government’s policy of maximum alignment. Obviously, the extent to which alignment can be maximised is not absolute. We are going to see some level of divergence from both sides, including, in some instances, on matters that are devolved; however, in many matters that are not devolved, we might well see divergence happening on the UK side as well as on the European side.
You have set out, first, in your letter and, secondly, in your comments today, two key reasons for that policy of maximum alignment. One is to maintain high standards, and the other is to avoid the unnecessary creation of additional non-tariff trade barriers—that is, the sorts of issues that we have been discussing in the TCA inquiry.
Is there not, though, a third objective of the policy, something that will actually become more important over time? Again, some people will disagree with this, but a clear majority in this Parliament—and a clear majority of the public—recognise that Brexit was a mistake and support rejoining, whether that be in the context of Scotland or the context of the UK. It might be a long-term objective—it might not happen in this decade and, to be even more pessimistic, might not even happen in the next—but surely the longer there is some divergence, the more value there is in minimising it and maximising alignment as best we can, so that when a process of rejoining becomes politically possible, it is not more complicated than it needs to be.
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.
The Scottish Government has a stated policy of EU alignment, but it comes with important caveats—where appropriate—which I think are sensible. However, they sometimes get missed or forgotten in discussions, certainly in the public domain. You told the committee last year, and repeated today, that you mean
“where it is meaningful and possible ... to do so.”
You have talked about the practical outcomes and reducing burdens, and I welcome what you said about the new UK Government looking to take a new approach.
My question is whether the limited use of the keeping pace power reflects a shift in what the Scottish Government has regarded as appropriate since the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 was passed and the EU alignment policy was set? Could the Scottish Government have done more to explain those caveats in policy around alignment when considering the gap between the use of the keeping pace power and the different regulations that have not been brought in?
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.
11:00I 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.
My second point was whether you think that the Scottish Government could have done more to explain those caveats. I think that an impression was created that we were going to align with EU law, and a lot of people expected a lot more alignment from the Scottish Government than there has been. Perhaps those important caveats, which I agree are sensible—this is not a criticism—about what is possible and meaningful have not been articulated to the public as well as they could have been.
If people ever got the impression that the 2021 act was the sole route by which alignment was going to be pursued, that does not reflect the reality of the situation. However, I do not think that that is the case. As I have said, I have been back to the committee and we have had debates in the chamber about the 2021 act, the different powers and the different ways of doing things. Can we continue to explain that? Yes, we can, and we will.
The examples of specific alignment measures are relatively limited at present—they relate to a series of issues such as single-use plastics and waste water. Those may not be the issues of highest priority for the public at large and perhaps they are better understood by the areas of the economy or society that have a particular interest in environmental standards or food standards or whatever.
As more legislative proposals come forward and as we get better used to how we to use the different tools to remain aligned, I think that there will be a better understanding that we have a palette of options. We will try to pursue the best way and you will hold us to account on whether it is indeed the best way.
The 2021 act is not and never was the only way to keep pace with European Union legislation. If people have had that impression, I wish to disabuse them of it because we have more ways in which we can remain aligned, and we are using them.
I should welcome the cabinet secretary to the divergence club, because in his answer to Neil Bibby he made the case for divergence. When something comes from Brussels, Strasbourg or wherever that is not in Scotland’s best interests, you have indicated a spirit of pragmatism, which I wholly support. Have I heard you correctly?
I hope that I am pragmatic, although I would leave that to other committee members to decide.
On the principle of divergence, you are a pragmatist.
We are pragmatic. I do not want to repeat the different stages of the process by which an assessment is made of particular proposals—
You do not need to do that. I just need to hear that what you said earlier is the Government’s position. Divergence will be pursued when anything that you previously signed up to, which you do not know about—the unknown unknowns—comes in our direction if it is not in Scotland’s best interests. The Government will not move in lockstep with that EU directive.
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—
It is not always possible, is it?
I was making the point that the biggest single challenge is working out which proposals have direct relevance for us here in Scotland.
Good point.
I will make something up about Greek olives. We do not need to have a position on Greek olives in Scotland, and we are not in the European Union. Therefore, I can confirm that I will not be making proposals in the Scottish Parliament about Greek olives.
I do not think that you need to apologise for being in favour of divergence when it is in the national interest. I think that that is very pragmatic.
Can I ask you not about Greek olives but about the principle that you have raised? We know that, in 2023, there were 576 legislative acts, and 1,222 directives from the European Union. Can you roughly break down how many of those ended up being not about Greek olives but things that were pertinent to Scotland? What resource was involved? You were on the European Scrutiny Committee with Bill Cash, so you must have sat through many hours of him waxing lyrical—
More than I care to remember, Mr Kerr.
I am sure. He was waxing lyrical about unaccountable law coming into this country and fitting into UK law under the direction of the European Union. What is the breakdown of the 576 legislative acts and the 1,222 directives? How many were pertinent to the devolved space?
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—
I have it here. I have not added up how many lines there are on the pages and pages of report that have been provided showing directives that have come from the European Union but which you have not brought forward. There is a column here on future consideration—it goes on and on and on; there are pages of it. I want to get a sense of how pragmatic you are being about this unending wave upon wave of directives from Brussels.
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.
That is certainly not what I am asking, convener.
It is worth pointing out my previous experience as a member of the European and External Relations Committee, which received information in previous sessions when we were part of the EU. Of course, the information still has to be sifted through by the UK Government to ensure dynamic alignment in Northern Ireland.
I am not asking for more information. I am making the point about the sift and the wave upon wave of directives that come from the European Union. When you were a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, cabinet secretary, those were automatically admitted into UK law. No resistance was possible—you had to agree to the directives. We do not have that now. That is why I am focusing on your pragmatism, which I applaud. I hope that you will take my compliment that you are being pragmatic in accepting that there is a need for divergence.
I will ask a broader question about the need for us to be in any kind of alignment with the European Union, given the current state of things in Brussels and in Strasbourg. There has been a subtle—actually, not very subtle—change in the dynamics of European politics, particularly on competition policy. The President of the French Republic said that the EU could die and that
“We are on the verge of a very important moment. Our former model is over—we are over-regulating and under-investing.”
He went on to say:
“In the two or three years to come, if we follow our classical agenda”—
he is referring to the regulatory agenda—
“we will be out of the market.”
We have to be very careful about this. The composition of the European Parliament has changed and the nature of the Commission’s remits are changing. There is a move towards deregulation, is there not? Should we not be very careful that we are not swimming in the wrong direction?
I definitely share President Macron’s view that there is a challenge to the European democratic mainstream, which is not what Mr Kerr went on to say in reflecting Mr Macron’s views on the challenge to politics in Europe. Countries such as France and, increasingly, Germany—and one might even say the United Kingdom—are facing an ever growing challenge from the populist right, which is calling into question our democratic institutions, including those of member states at a European level and multilaterally, at a world level.
I think that President Macron is right to make sure that all mainstream political parties and voices think about how, whether as independent states or as part of wider communities such as the European Union, we make sure that we are fit for purpose and making decisions as best we can.
Of course, the challenge for us in Scotland is that we are not part of that. We are outside, so we cannot make these points directly at the Council of Ministers. We do not have a nominee sitting on the Commission that is able to make the—
That is not the point.
Well, that is my point, Mr Kerr—
Mr Kerr, can you let the cabinet secretary respond to the question?
The answers are very long and I know that we do not have very much time.
The problem for Mr Kerr is that I disagree with him, so I—
Please can we have order in the committee and let the cabinet secretary speak?
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.
11:15
I am just drawing the cabinet secretary’s attention to the current flow of opinion among mainstream political leadership in the European Union. I quoted Emmanuel Macron and Mario Draghi has produced a significant report produced. There is a mood in Brussels to deregulate, to free up economies from the stranglehold of the regulation that has been layered on over the decades. The only point that I am making to the cabinet secretary is that we should get into that mainstream as well and—I think that, except for one or two members of the committee, we all agree on this—understand that economic growth comes about as you free up the economy and allow it to expand and grow.
That was a statement. That was not a question.
I was asking whether you agreed with that. That was my question.
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.
I have one question, cabinet secretary, which is on the same theme that members have been pursuing. I will take a nostalgic look at what used to happen in the House of Commons. When I was studying European institutions in the 1980s, and Margaret Thatcher was pushing very hard for greater European integration and economic integration, it was a truism—certainly in academic circles—that there was virtually no effective scrutiny of EU legislation in its various forms.
Notwithstanding the efforts of the House of Commons committee that you mentioned, such work that was done was really carried out in the House of Lords, but even that was recognised to be insufficient, given the volume of things that was coming out of the EU. That is a big task for the UK Government, and it is a big task for the Scottish Government. I am really pleased to hear you use phrases such as “proportionate”. You used another phrase in your introductory statement—I cannot quite read it—pointing out that you cannot do all that stuff, which is quite right.
As has been discussed, one of the stated aims of the Scottish Government is to make it as easy as possible for Scotland to rejoin the EU. Has there been dialogue or is there any scope for there to be dialogue with the EU, either at the Council of Ministers or European Commission level, to find out what would be important to them for Scotland to align with, to make rejoining as easy as possible? I am not quite as pessimistic as Patrick Harvie about Scotland’s opportunity to re-enter the EU.
The previous inhibition to that dialogue was that the UK was the member state, so there were limited conversations between Scotland and the EU. That inhibition is no longer there. Is that dialogue happening, or is it possible to have dialogue, on what aspects are crucial to facilitate Scotland’s re-entry into the EU as rapidly as possible?
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.
I want to put to you a question that has already been asked. Given the burden on the Scottish Government—of course it is a burden, including on civil servants and on this committee—in trying to monitor alignment and any de-alignment, is it not possible to be proactive and initiate bilateral discussions, disregarding what has to go through the UK and for Scotland to separately have those discussions about the things that are most important to the EU to help relieve that burden?
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.
I bring in Mr Adam. You will need to be quick, as we are really short of time. If you could be succinct, I would really appreciate it. Thank you.
Okay. I am always sharp and to the point—that is my preamble.
Cabinet secretary, you mentioned the veterinary agreement. You—quite rightly—said that you see that as an agriculture, food and drink agreement. On our trip to Brussels, those were key issues for us. To put it succinctly, my question is, are we doing enough to align with the EU? As Patrick Harvie said, it was mentioned that we would have to duplicate every dot and comma, particularly in those sectors, for all the reasons that you mentioned earlier. Are we aligning sufficiently to ensure that we can get ourselves into a position where we can negotiate and get those key sectors to trade in Europe? Do we need to do any more? If we do, what is it?
I am not aware of anything that would require significant change. We will need to have clarity—I do not think that this a contentious point—from the UK Government on the legislative mechanism, on the form of the legislation and on how we as a Government and as a Parliament can feed into the process of legislation that would then lead to an agriculture, food and drink agreement between the UK and the European Union.
We are having a very open dialogue. Next week, I am in London, and I will raise the issue with the UK Government then. I will also be raising it at an interministerial meeting with the UK Government in December. We want to work with the UK Government. I think that this is a shared priority for most parties and most members of the Scottish Parliament; it certainly is for the Scottish Government.
Where there is a will there is a way. An agreement would be hugely beneficial to the Scottish economy, which has suffered because of Brexit, to the agricultural sector, which has suffered because of Brexit, and it will be good for our food and drink sector, which has suffered because of Brexit. We can all play an active part in delivering that during this session of the Scottish Parliament and the current UK parliamentary term.
I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for attending. The session has been really interesting, and it has laid out some of the challenges on keeping pace when the pacemaker is neither in your team nor setting the pace nor the direction of travel.
I will close the committee meeting. We were going to review evidence today, but we will come back to that next week if that is possible.
Meeting closed at 11:27.