Seòmar agus comataidhean

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—

Well, that is my point, Mr Kerr—

The problem for Mr Kerr is that I disagree with him, so I—

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.