Chamber and committees

Scotland’s international network creates domestic opportunities, attracts investment and ultimately benefits the people of Scotland. I am sure that my colleague Willie Coffey was delighted to see the First Minister open our new Nordic office in Copenhagen. We are also committed to opening a new office in Warsaw during this parliamentary session.

We will ensure that our international work is measurable, transparent and available to the public. From next year onwards, we will publish an annual report that explains how our international offices work to promote our values, objectives and priorities around the world.

It is hugely beneficial that the network is growing—that we have a greater footprint in northern Europe and in central Europe. It is worth observing, in value-for-money terms, that the Scottish Government manages the network with significantly less resource than similar devolved Governments elsewhere in the world spend.

At present, we are living within financial constraints, so our plans have focused on delivering the opening of the office in Copenhagen and moving forward in the central European region, which is so important for Scotland—not least because of the great many people from there who have chosen to move to Scotland. There are many opportunities that we can pursue.

I hope that we will, in time, look at growing the network further. In the here and now, I am absolutely delighted that we have been able to open the office in Copenhagen officially and that we are moving forward with opening an office in Warsaw.

There is nothing better than having people in place in a region to understand the opportunities that exist in that particular region. For us, our northern European neighbourhood—whether we are talking about Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the three Baltic states or, indeed, Iceland or the Faroes—is our immediate neighbourhood. There is much that we share in respect of needs, interests, concerns and expectations, and across policy issues, including energy, economic growth and sustainability and cultural exchange issues—and much besides. There is much that we could and should be doing. Having a dedicated team that is focused on delivering what the Scottish Government wishes to pursue in Scotland but also working as a conduit to colleagues in our Nordic neighbourhood is the ideal way in which we wish to pursue the collegial relationship that we want to have with our nearest overseas northern European neighbours.

I agree with my colleague on the democracy point and, to remain with the economic challenge, Brexit has, of course, had visible impacts. For example, analysis in April by researchers at the centre for economic performance at the London School of Economics showed that post-Brexit trade barriers had led to a 6 per cent increase in food prices in the UK.

We, in the Scottish Government, continue to engage with stakeholders to understand the impacts that they are experiencing, and we will continue to carefully study further economic indicators as they are released.

The short answer is no, there is no parallel. The Scottish Government’s plans are for Scotland to reapply and to become part of the European Union again. That is totally diametrically opposed to the Brexit priorities of the UK Government.

On behalf of the Scottish Government, I join the First Minister, the Presiding Officer and members across the chamber in extending our best wishes to Her Majesty the Queen and to her family at this difficult time.

Denmark, Norway and Sweden are already some of Scotland’s biggest trading partners, with all three in our top 20 export markets, and with £2.6 billion of goods and services being exported to those countries by Scottish businesses in 2019. The Nordics are also responsible for major inward investment into Scotland, including in ScotWind.

On 26 August, the First Minister visited Copenhagen to open our new Nordic office. As part of that trip, she had conversations with a number of major energy companies and investors. It is clear that the energy transition, renewable energy and hydrogen will be major opportunities for Scotland in the region. I am also struck by the scale of the opportunity for life sciences and medical technology, with Copenhagen being the base of the United Nations Children’s Fund, which is one of the world’s largest buyers of crisis and medical supplies.

Yes, it is. The Scottish Government has had overseas offices since the Scottish Parliament reconvened in 1999. Those offices continue to generate significant economic and reputational benefits to Scotland at a time of increasing global uncertainty, and we need our friends and allies more, not less.

We are pleased to see the enthusiasm for, and consensus on, the excellent job that Scotland’s international offices do from day to day in the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee’s recent report on the Scottish Government’s international work. I invite Alexander Stewart to read the British Council’s 2019 report on Scotland and soft power, which suggests that we should expand the network as we are now doing.

I will indeed, Presiding Officer.

Just last week, the Resolution Foundation estimated that Northern Ireland will be the least impacted UK region in the long run because of its access to the single market.

For the reasons that I have set out, I reject the Conservatives’ amendment.

The motion, as amended by the Labour amendment, asks the Parliament to take note of these very serious concerns, and to urge the UK Government to draw back from its course of reckless confrontation, withdraw the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, and restart negotiations with the EU immediately with a view to mutually agreeable, durable solutions. I ask members to support the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that it is fundamentally unacceptable for the UK Government to unilaterally disapply key parts of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement, the signing of which the Prime Minister hailed as a “fantastic moment”; further agrees that by proposing this course of action the UK Government is risking a disastrous trade dispute with the European Union, with damaging consequences for Scotland in the midst of a cost of living crisis and at a time when the UK is in danger of falling into recession, and calls, therefore, on the UK Government to withdraw the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill and restart negotiations with the EU immediately.

The United Kingdom Government’s Northern Ireland Protocol Bill had its second reading in the House of Commons on Monday. The European Union considers the bill illegal. Many in the Commons also doubt its legality; others warn that it will undermine the UK’s international reputation; and still more point out that the bill fails to bring the Democratic Unionist Party back into power sharing in Northern Ireland, or to advance trade talks with either the EU or the United States of America. However, not a single Conservative MP voted against the legislation.

I will focus my remarks on three issues that are of utmost interest to all colleagues in the Parliament: first, the issue of legislative consent, which Conservative members seemed to have forgotten about when they told us last week that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill was none of our business; secondly, the question of international law, which itself is related to whether the Scottish Government can recommend consent; and thirdly, the potential direct impact and damage that will be caused to people in Scotland, should the bill become law.

The Northern Ireland Protocol is a key part of the withdrawal agreement that the UK Prime Minister signed with the EU in 2019. Indeed, without the protocol, it is clear that there would not have been a deal at all between the EU and the UK. So good was that deal, according to Boris Johnson, that when he signed it, he hailed it as a “fantastic moment” and went on to fight a general election on the basis that he had “got Brexit done”.

However, the bill unilaterally disapplies, or affords the UK Government powers to disapply, the legislation that enforces parts of the protocol in the UK. In other words, the UK Government wants to tear up that self-same apparently fantastic deal and renege on the UK Government’s commitment and international obligations. It wants the Scottish Government to recommend consent for the bill that does the tearing up, and for this Parliament to agree that recommendation.

To address the first issue directly, it is inconceivable that the Scottish Government could recommend agreeing to such a legislative consent motion.

That brings me to my second point, on the question of international law. It is the opinion of all—except, seemingly, the UK Government—that the legislation, if it were implemented, would breach international law. The bill deliberately sets the UK on an entirely avoidable collision course with our fellow Europeans in the EU, and it leaves the UK increasingly isolated in the court of world opinion.

Following the introduction of the bill, European Commission vice-president, Maros Šefcovic, stated:

“Let there be no doubt: there is no legal, nor political justification whatsoever for unilaterally changing an international agreement ... Let’s call a spade a spade: this is illegal.”

He was not alone in that view. That view was echoed across European capitals, and it is held not just in Europe. Senior US officials do not

“believe that unilateral steps are going to be the most effective way to address the challenges facing the implementation of the protocol”.

Most important of all, perhaps, is the view from Northern Ireland. More than half the members of the Northern Ireland legislative Assembly have rejected the UK Government’s actions as “utterly reckless”. They are reckless in terms of negotiating with the EU, reckless with regard to the United States and reckless with regard to the Belfast Good Friday agreement.

Legal commentators tend to agree that the proposals could breach international law. That is deeply concerning, but not surprising. It is not surprising from a Government that, in 2020, brazenly said that its legislation to amend the withdrawal agreement would

“break international law in a ... limited and specific way”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 8 September 2020; Vol 679, c 509.]

as though that was okay. Jonathan Jones QC, the former head of the UK Government legal department, has described the legal position as “hopeless”.

In reference to the legality of the proposed legislation, let me turn to the Labour amendment. Obviously, the bill would need to complete its parliamentary passage and be commenced by the UK Government to breach international law. The legal position would depend on conditions at the time, as well as other factors and arguments about which we do not currently have full information. However, on that basis, the Government is content to accept the Labour amendment.

Let me turn to the Scottish interests. It is clear that the bill damages even further the UK Government’s relationship with our largest trading partner. It causes business and investor uncertainty, and it risks sparking a damaging trade war. I cannot think of anything more irresponsible than launching that confrontational action in the middle of a cost of living crisis, when the UK is at real risk of entering a recession.

It has been estimated that, so far, Brexit has cost the UK economy £31 billion. We know that Scotland’s total trade with the EU was 16 per cent lower in 2021 than it was in 2019, while its trade with non-EU countries fell by only 4 per cent in the same period.

Many of the difficulties that Scottish businesses face are a direct result of the UK Government’s decision to adopt a hard Brexit outside of the single market and the customs union. When our supply chains interact with EU businesses—be it for materials, finished goods or labour and skills—that approach has made it harder and more costly for businesses to operate.

Catherine Barnard, professor of EU law at the University of Cambridge, has warned of even tougher times ahead and the risk of iconic Scottish products such as whisky, salmon and cashmere being affected in the event of a trade war. That is hugely concerning. Scottish salmon exports to the EU alone are worth £370 million and account for two thirds of the sector’s exports. Any retaliatory measures for the sector would be expected to impact many of Scotland’s rural communities and supply chain operators.

Clearly, in embarking on an utterly senseless and self-defeating course of action, the UK Government has provoked an unwinnable conflict, with likely catastrophic consequences for many people. Scotland cannot, and must not, accept that.

The protocol allows Northern Ireland to be simultaneously in the EU’s single market and in the UK’s internal market. It is disingenuous for the UK Government to claim that the protocol is doing harm to Northern Ireland’s economy. Just a month ago, Stephen Kelly, the head of Manufacturing Northern Ireland, stated the exact opposite. He said:

“Every piece of evidence presented so far shows a positive impact”.

That view is echoed by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which found that Northern Ireland’s economic output had recently outperformed the UK average. Similarly, the chief analyst of the Ulster Bank has noted that the number of manufacturing jobs in Northern Ireland is growing four times faster than the UK average.

Beatrice Wishart is absolutely right to ask such questions. Great lessons can be learned from other island groups in northern Europe—for example, the Faroe Islands, where the various island communities have been successfully integrated.

I am open to suggestions on the issue, and to hearing about best practice. We need to understand what can be done to ensure that our island communities—in Orkney, Shetland or the Western Isles—have the best infrastructure that is available. I would be happy to discuss the issue further with the member.