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.

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.