Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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 was making the point that the biggest single challenge is working out which proposals have direct relevance for us here in Scotland.

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 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.