Thank you, convener.
Today is interesting timing for this discussion. Notwithstanding where we are in the process, I continue to be deeply concerned about the negative impacts of EU exit, whenever it happens and whatever the terms. I am particularly troubled by the on-going threat of a no-deal exit. I understand that, as of today, the potential no-deal exit date shifts from Thursday this week to the end of January—I think that it will be 31 January; nobody is quite sure.
There has been extensive preparation to protect environment, climate change and land reform interests from the damaging effects of a no-deal Brexit. The Government will continue to prepare for that possibility unless and until it is fully ruled out. We must continue to do so, notwithstanding changing dates.
As the committee knows, on 8 October the Government published, “Scottish Government Overview of ‘No Deal’ Preparations”. I wrote to the committee last week to set out more detail on the actions that have been taken across the portfolio to prepare for no deal, including actions to ensure a functioning statute book. The reality is that it will simply not be possible to mitigate all the impacts of leaving the EU without a deal.
Three aspects of more general Brexit impacts across the portfolio should attract the committee’s attention. First, the revised withdrawal agreement and political declaration that the Prime Minister has agreed to are still live, and together they raise significant concerns, because the revised texts contain no legally binding commitments on environmental protection or climate change. The language in the revised political declaration about the need to “uphold ... common high standards” is unclear and has no legal force.
Because of the Prime Minister’s stated intention of potentially diverging, in the future, from EU laws and regulations that deliver environmental, product and labour standards, the issue continues to be a major concern.
The UK Government’s apparent intention to move away from alignment with EU standards could also seriously undermine the development of long-term common frameworks. The Scottish Government will not agree to any measures that would disadvantage Scotland or place environmental standards at risk, or to any that do not reflect the clear desire of the people of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament.
Secondly, I am concerned about the pace of final development of the UK Environment Bill and the lack of time that we were given for proper detailed consideration of its provisions. Before that bill was published, the Scottish Government was not consulted or even made aware of the climate governance role that is to be given to the proposed office for environmental protection, to replace the role of the European Commission. I have told my UK counterparts that we must work together in a spirit of true collaboration to develop the meaningful joint decision-making processes that might be required, as long as they respect the devolution settlement and help us to achieve our respective net zero targets.
Thirdly, effective and appropriate governance to monitor and enforce environmental standards in Scotland is vital. Our consultation has confirmed that key gaps will exist once we lose the European Commission’s scrutiny of Government performance, so we are currently finalising our proposals for long-term governance arrangements on the basis of that analysis. However, gaps would be immediate in the event of a no-deal exit from the EU.
I intend to appoint an interim advisory panel that will operate if a no-deal exit is confirmed. That panel will provide advice on maintenance of environmental standards and implementation of environmental law in Scotland. Because of his considerable skills, I have invited former Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Jim Martin to chair the panel, and to put in place an interim approach that will follow as closely as possible the Commission’s approach.
I hope that the committee recognises the huge amount of work that has already been carried out by the Scottish Government, and its on-going work to ensure that our environmental laws and regulatory systems are robust in the event of exit from the EU.
I would be happy to discuss any of those issues further with the committee.