 I welcome everyone to the 22nd meeting in 2018 of the Eclare committee. We have apologies this morning from Graham Day, from Alec Neal and Richard Lyle. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, I would like to remind everyone present to switch off mobile phones as they may affect the broadcasting system. I can also advise members that we will move to committee room 3 to consider the third item on the agenda. I should begin also by declaring an interest as a farmer. Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. The first item on the agenda is for the committee to consider whether to take item 3 in private. Shall we take item 3 in private? Agenda item 2 is the implication for Scotland of the UK's departure from the European Union. These are the environmental implications. We are delighted this morning to hear evidence via a video link from Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the UK Government on the environmental principles and implications for Scotland of the UK's departure from the EU. Good morning, Mr Gove. Thank you for taking the time to speak to us via this video link this morning. We are very grateful to you for doing so. Because time is very limited, I think that it has already been agreed that we will just move straight to questions. The first question is from Finlay Carson this morning. There is a politically driven message in this place that there is little or unsatisfactory level of engagement between our two Governments. Just to put it on the record, can you tell us what procedures DEFRA has put in place to ensure effective engagement with the Scottish Government on Brexit? I meet regularly with representatives of the Scottish Government and I have to say that the warmth of the relationship between myself and Rosanna Cunningham and Fergus Ewing on an operational level belies what you might hear about some of the political tensions that are supposed to exist. I saw Fergus informally just last week at the Royal Highland show but every month to six weeks we have formal meetings with the UK Government and representatives of all the devolved Administrations to discuss all the issues that fall within our respective remits. At those meetings, I have to say those very rarely across word and I have to commend the constructive and pragmatic way that the Scottish Government and its officials and its ministers engage with the day-to-day pragmatic business of Government. Just on the back of that, what sort of information does DEFRA share with the Scottish Government to help us enable plan for life after Brexit? We do everything that we can to share all the information that we can. For example, we share draft clauses with the Scottish and the Welsh Governments for future legislation. We try to give the Scottish Government and the other devolved Administrations advanced sites of white papers or command papers. It is also the case that when it comes to drafting secondary legislation we try as much as possible to share not just the broad outlines but the working detail. Of course sometimes, as is natural between Governments, as is natural sometimes between Government departments, people would prefer to have slightly more time and slightly more detail but as a general rule I have instructed my department to lean in and to share as much information as possible as early as possible and indeed we have benefited on occasions from advice that we have had. I will mention just one thing in particular which is not really a controversial bill. The bill to ban the sale of ivory, which is making its way through the House of Commons. We had very good engagement with the Scottish Government on that. They are on the same page as us and wanting this legislation to be brought forward on a UK-wide basis and they made us aware of wanting to potential constitutional wrinkles but we worked collectively to iron those out. Okay, thank you for putting that on record. Thank you very much. I have got the next question, Mr Gove. I can ask you what progress is being made on the negotiations for the areas within the committee's remit that will require a UK legislative framework. This is really the area for policy frameworks that we are wanting to inquire about and how you see that emerging and developing. Well, as I think Mike Russell will have informed the committee in a different context, there have been a number of deep dives. A very close, collaborative, thoughtful engagement at an official level in the areas for which my department and Farragus's and Rosanna's departments are responsible because we wanted to ensure that there are UK-wide frameworks in a number of areas. So, when it comes to environmental principles overall, we accepted at a previous meeting of the UK Government and devolved administrations a sort of draft text on a guiding approach that had actually been drafted by Leslie Griffiths on behalf of the Welsh Government with support from Rosanna and we were very, very happy with that as just a sort of rules of the road guide to help us to shape those frameworks. I think when it comes to the environment overall, all four administrations are more or less in the same position. We all want to ensure that as we leave the European Union there's no diminution in the protection that the environment has. Thank you. What, in your view, is in the nature and scope of the UK legislative framework for the implementation of the EU emissions trading system? How are we getting on with that? Well, the emissions trading system is principally an area that falls within the remit of the business energy and industrial strategy team. Again, I wouldn't want to say too much at this stage because it's properly a matter for my colleagues Claire Perry and Greg Clark and I wouldn't want to trespass on to their territory but there's nothing that I'm aware of which is an obstacle or an impediment to good working between the UK Government and the DAs but if for any reason, I'll go from obviously this hearing to check with my colleagues at base, if for any reason there are difficulties then of course I will write to your committee to let you know what those might be and what we're doing in order to overcome them. Thank you. Can you talk a little bit about waste packaging and product regulations? Please and tell us how you're developing your thinking in that area. Absolutely. We hope to have a waste and resources strategy published, the UK Government waste and resources strategy published in the autumn. One of the things that we've sought to do is to learn from Scotland and in particular Wales. Wales has very, very high levels of recycling and there are lessons that we in England can learn from them about how we can drive up recycling rates overall but it's also the case that as well as recycling we have ambitions as a UK Government to have a deposit return scheme and again it was the case that the Scottish Government was out of the traps earlier in outlining the importance of DRS. We want to work collaboratively with all of the devolved administrations in order to ensure that a deposit return scheme works effectively because while of course recycling happens at a local government level if you're going to have a DRS scheme you would want to, we would want to make sure that there weren't any discontinuities at the border between Scotland and England that meant that the operation of that scheme was somehow less than smooth. Right. Thank you very much again for that and now I'll move to the next question. Angus MacDonald, please. Yes, thanks. Good morning Mr Gove. If I could just briefly continue on the deposit return scheme you'll be aware possibly Mr Gove that this morning the Scottish Government launched a public consultation on the design of such a scheme so given the strong public support and the environmental importance of reducing plastic pollution overall can you assure the committee that you're doing everything you can to support the Scottish Government in its work and are there any discussions on going between the UK, Scottish and indeed the Welsh Governments on system design and timing? Yes, absolutely. Well firstly you're right that there is widespread public concern about plastic waste and the tide of toxic plastic that finds its way into our rivers and our oceans and all the Governments of the United Kingdom are united in recognising that we need to work individually and together to deal with it and of course the Scottish Government as I mentioned very briefly earlier but let me put it on record was brave and right in stressing that a deposit return scheme would be an important part of resolving this issue and we've been working I think collaboratively with Rosanna Cunningham and with the Welsh Government as well in order to make sure that we can ensure that the proposals that Scotland brings forward dovetail with the proposals that we'll introduce in the rest of the United Kingdom. Okay, thanks. The new EU targets for recycling of packaging particularly for plastic are more ambitious than is currently being achieved. Do you agree that an ambitious deposit return scheme will be needed to achieve these targets and do you agree that it will need to be comprehensive in relation to plastic drinks containers because we're hearing rumours that you're looking at simply an on-the-go deposit return scheme? Well I wouldn't want to pre-empt our own consultation but we do believe yes that you do need to be my own view is the more comprehensive the better I think you're absolutely right and I think that you know we're we're all aware and you quite rightly remind us of the need to be aware of the the scale of ambition required in order to deal with this problem but our reliance on plastic across our economy is something that does need to be tackled. A deposit return scheme is a critical way of making sure that as consumers and as producers all of us can play our part in making sure that we deal with the pollution and waste problems that our reliance on plastic has generated. And with regard to the circular economy package that the EU has adopted was regard to increasing targets for recycling. Is the UK government committed to achieving at least these standards and targets even if Brexit means that they're no longer binding on the UK? Yes absolutely. We committed ourselves to the higher level of ambition that the EU has committed itself to and one of the things that I would say is that we wanted to make sure that outside the European Union as I said earlier there is no diminution in our commitment to environmental protection indeed in some areas we believe that there is the potential to go further. Okay that's good to hear. I'm aware of the time constraints convener so if I could explore the environmental quality non-legislative common frameworks can you tell the committee what progress has been made in the development of the non-legislative frameworks for environmental issues such as air quality, biodiversity and waste management? Well in all of these areas the work is going on between my department and between the devolved administrations. When it comes to air quality we published I hope people will recognise an ambitious aim to ensure that across the UK and reliance on the internal combustion engine there will be no new conventional petrol or diesel cars sold after 2040 and they'll all be off the road with one or two unique exemptions by 2050. I know that the Scottish Government has a high level of ambition there and we would applaud any country that wants to have a higher level of ambition but we've created what we believe is an effective backdrop against which all the countries of the United Kingdom can make progress and in the other areas that you mentioned as well we believe that it's necessary to have effective collaboration it's in all our interests and there are no issues of principle between us you know there may be some other areas where our respective governments might have a divergent view about what the right future should be but on all the matters that you mentioned and the broader environmental agenda I don't think that there is any real difference or divergence between the ambitions of the Scottish Welsh and the UK government. Okay you mentioned the possibility of divergent views how do you see disputes being resolved? I think that one of the things that we're resolving at the moment is the means by which we can ensure that we respect the fact that the environment is a totally devolved competence and one of the things that the establishment of these frameworks and the collaborative way in which we establish these frameworks is setting out to do is to respect and strengthen the devolution framework there's not a single power that the Scottish government exercises that we want to remove from or quite the opposite we see the potential outside the European Union for each of the individual parts of the the United Kingdom as well as collaborating together also to make the decisions that they believe are right for their own particular jurisdiction. Thank you Mr McDonald, Mark Ruskell's supplementary thank you could I ask you about the frameworks that are being developed in relation to trade negotiations and how they may impact on environmental standards because it's clear that the government seems to have two different ways it could go on this in your own DEFRA consultation you talk about maintaining high standards and yet when I read the UK government's economic impact assessment on brexit it talks about a deregulatory agenda in relation to consumer protection and the environment so which one is it and how do we ensure that devolved administrations in indeed your own parliament is able to scrutinise what comes out of any trade deal? Well I think it would be the case that no that any trade deal that's secured would have to make its own way through the house of Commons and I think it's also the case that the involvement of the devolved administrations in making sure that we get the right trade deal is central. The thing I would say is that the tension that you describe I don't believe is there we have been clear at a UK government level and I don't think this is a view that's very different from the view of the Scottish Government that we absolutely need to maintain high environmental standards and for that matter high animal welfare standards in any trade deal that we conclude and it's not just that we want to do that because it's right morally it's also the pragmatic economic thing to do because Britain will succeed in the future and the individual nations of the United Kingdom will succeed in the future on the basis that the products that we produce are known worldwide for the high quality standards that lie behind them and there's no future for the United Kingdom in trying to lead some sort of race to the bottom. The future for us economically is being the home of quality whether that's in the food and drink that we produce or also in the areas like for example ultra low emission vehicles which effective targeted and tough regulation can help sustain. Does that mean that environmental standards then should be off the table in relation to trade negotiations? It means that environmental standards have to be maintained in the course of trade negotiations absolutely they do need to be defended on one of the things that we need to be clear with our our trading partners is that of course free trade brings many many benefits but we don't believe that in order to secure the benefits of free trade that you should trade away environmental protection. Is that a view that's shared across government? Yes. Okay right thank you Mr Ruskell I now move to Donald Cameron for the next question Mr Cameron. Thank you convener Mr Gove I'd like to continue asking about UK wide frameworks but perhaps with a slightly longer term view. What UK wide processes of collaboration do you envisage might be needed in the future for example when dealing with changes to international obligations going forward? Well I think that it's absolutely critical that we make sure that all the constituent nations of the United Kingdom feel that their interests are effectively represented and we have as I say at deaf for at the moment what started as an informal arrangement which is now becoming an integral part of our way of working an integral part I think of the Scottish Welsh and Northern Ireland government's ways of working and I think that whether it's through the joint ministerial committee structure or whether it's through the structures that we ourselves have set up the most important thing is to make sure that we operate with courtesy towards each other that we share as much information as possible and we also recognise that the work that has been undertaken by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the UK cabinet office in order to ensure that we can resolve some of these issues in a civilised way bears fruit. Okay, thank you and Mr Cameron. I have now moved to Finlay Cawson who has a series of questions. Mr Cawson. Thank you. I would like to move on to funding Mr Gove. The executive summary of the future of food farming and environment sets out a funding guarantee to replace cap. It maintains the same cash total funding for farm support under both pillar one and pillar two of the current cap. I'm going to ask three questions on the back of that. Does the UK Government funding guarantee cover funding for pillar one and pillar two in their entirety? Will replacement funding be based on annual averages or spending projections? Within that, does the funding guarantee cover payments under multi-annual agreements with land managers to be made after 2022? The first thing is that the funding guarantee is that it does cover pillars one and pillar two. It covers it right up until 2022 and it is also the case that if we have entered into contracts with land managers and those contracts extend until after 2022, then they will be honoured. Yes. Okay, and will that be based on annual averages or spending projections? I'll have to come back to you on that because we haven't definitively what's the word, on that issue. Okay. Thank you very much. Now I move to Mr Rowley. I think earlier Mr Gove you said that there would be not a single power removed from the devolved administrations but you are aware that there is concern in Scotland which has been described as a power grab by the UK Government and many of these powers are around the environment so what would your view be to those who say that there is this power grab taking place and that powers that should be coming back here are not coming back to this Parliament? People do talk about the so-called power grab but I haven't seen anyone enumerate a single power that the UK Government wants to exercise which involves taking power back from the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament, quite the opposite. I have absolutely no desire to exercise powers which are currently exercised by Rosanna Cunningham or any of her colleagues in the Scottish Government and the case is made that that's what the UK Government wants to do. I don't know a single UK Government Minister sitting around the UK Cabinet table who wants to take a power away from the Scottish Government, no-one has ever identified one. The UK Government and I have suggested that there could be indeed a significant increase in devolved autonomy in certain areas and in particular in relation to the environment. Do you have any view on where you would see more powers and more autonomy coming to the Scottish Parliament in relation to the environment? It is the case that the environment is fully devolved, agriculture and fisheries. There are, of course, UK frameworks that we will need to have on agriculture and fisheries to make sure that Scotland's producers have the opportunity to have the same unfettered access to consumers in England that they do at the moment. I can foresee circumstances where, as Fragus Ewing was hinting last week, he decides to develop support for Scotland's farmers in a different way from the way in which we do so south of the border. It could be the case that there are other areas of environmental innovation or ambition, and we were talking about it at a possible return scheme earlier. We've also been talking about Scotland's desire to move further and faster and supporting ultra-low emission vehicles. Of course, it helps if we all work and move together on the environment because our air knows no boundaries. We're bounded by the same seas. It's important that we recognise how critical it is to work together. One of the things that I would say is that Rosanna Cunning, when it comes to, for example, the reintroduction of native species, has been thoughtful in thinking about some of the ways in which Scotland could go further and faster. I applaud that level of ambition and would never want to do anything other than to encourage the Scottish Parliament and the Government to flex its muscles in those areas where it has competence. I think that there's an acceptance in Scotland that in areas like agriculture and fisheries, there is a need for these common frameworks. I suppose the question is, in your view, is Scotland coming to the table to negotiate these common frameworks as equals or is the UK Parliament in charge of these frameworks? At the end of the day, who has the final say? I regard it as a partnership. The union is a partnership. Now, there are constitutional principles about where sovereignty ultimately lies, which are well understood, but day-to-day, week-to-week, year-to-year working, I believe, between the UK Government and the Scottish Armed Forces for that matter, Welsh and Northern Ireland administrations, is, I believe, a partnership of equals. It's one from which we in the UK Government can learn sometimes, the Scottish Government, whether it's whatever the political complexion it may have, will do things that we in the UK Government might want to listen and learn from. More than that, it's in the nature of the fact that, when it comes to fisheries, more than a majority of the fish caught in UK waters are caught by Scottish boats and landed in Scottish ports. It is the case that if you think about the landscape of the United Kingdom overall, some of our most important habitats and also some of our most important food production sectors are in Scotland. We can't have, I believe, a successful UK food strategy or farming strategy without treating Scotland as an equal. Two things that I'm sure everyone around the table appreciates is that two of our single biggest exports from the UK are salmon and whisky. Both of them depend on making sure that we have a proper respect for Scotland's unique needs. Part of that, particularly when it comes to, for example, salmon, is making sure that we have the right environmental standards as well. Thank you very much. A supplementary from Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, convener, and good morning, Mr Gove. Just on the tensions between the Governments about powers, it boils down to the powers that are in the bill just passed at Westminster at section 15, that basically gives a period of time during which the UK Government can take a different view and enforce that different view of our Scotland. Now, this morning, you've come across as a very reasonable man, and we know you've good relationships with Scottish ministers, and I accept that. How do you think those powers might be exercised? I think that that is the area of tension that there might be at the moment between the Parliaments and indeed between ministers. I completely understand that, and one of the things that I do understand as well is that my colleague David Lidington tried and sought to ensure that there would be a shared understanding. Of course, there was a difference of opinion, and I respect that between the view of the Scottish Government and David Lidington's view about how the EU withdrawal bill legislation should eventually take shape. David's view was that there may be circumstances in which the UK Government has to act in order to safeguard the safe workings of the Union. My view is that I can understand why that power is there. I think that my Cabinet colleague was right, but notwithstanding the different interpretations about what the best way forward was in that legislation, what we should do, what my job is to do, is to try to build trust daily, weekly, monthly between the UK Government and the devolved Government as we leave the European Union. So, even though that power is there, it needn't be, I hope it won't be, exercised in the way that some have feared. So, I won't say that the, what's the word, the concerns are, I understand the sincerity with which they're held, but I hope that we can prove that we want to make sure that the Scottish Government is fully involved in all the conversations that we need to have to make our exit work, even if we disagree over what our eventual destination should be out. Some of the European Union, nevertheless, in the day-to-day practical arrangements that we have, I want to make sure that we work together as well as we possibly can. A supplementary now from Angus MacDonald. Convener, Mr Gove, I've been listening closely to the assurances that you're giving this morning, and I'm certainly intrigued by your assertion that we have a partnership of equals. Given the comments made by Liz Truss yesterday, which put in doubt whether there's a collective responsibility in the UK Government at all, how can we take anything that you're telling us today as gospel? Well, I don't think you should take anything that I say as gospel, because, by definition, I'm not an apostle or a disciple, and so therefore I'm not Matthew Mark or John, I'm just Michael. I'm not even saying Michael at that. No, I think all levity aside, you should judge us as a government by our actions, and the key thing I would say is if we look back over the course of the last year, while, for example, Minister Ewing and Minister Cunningham and I might take different views on different issues, we've worked together and we've sought to work together collaboratively. Take a case in point. Minister Ewing is quite rightly concerned about the operation of the discard ban on hate with respect to the Scottish fleet, and he's been working with my colleague George Eustis and myself in order to make sure that we can have a common view towards the European Commission and that in the run-up to the December Fisheries Council that we can get the EU position to change, and it's Farragus who's raised this issue, he's absolutely right to, we want to work with him, it affects the Scottish fleet more than anyone, but we believe that we have a responsibility to act, and I hope that Farragus would say that whatever else, that when he does raise these concerns we do everything that we can to make sure that we respect them and work together. Okay, thanks, I appreciate that, Mr Gove. We've covered a wide range of subjects this morning, but given that you've just mentioned fisheries, I wonder if we could briefly look at wild fisheries, specifically Atlantic salmon populations. Now, we know that a decline in Scotland's native salmon populations continues, and there's clearly the intergovernmental organisation, NASCO, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, which has done some good work with regard to recent Farragus and Greenland fisheries closures. However, our membership of NASCO is via our membership of the EU, so can you tell me, does our membership of NASCO continue via the EU during the transition period, and what are the UK Government's intentions with regard to longer-term membership of NASCO? You're absolutely right that during the transition period all the legal obligations and relationships that the UK has with other parties continue as before, that's the purpose of the transition period, you're quite right in mentioning. Once we leave, when we want to continue membership of NASCO, we want to continue membership of regional fisheries management organisations in order to ensure that we can manage stocks in a sustainable way, and you're absolutely right, there are concerns about the future of salmon and they relate partly to climate change, and they relate partly to also some, in some cases, agricultural practices in some particular countries, but it's critical that we all work together, Scotland, Norway, Iceland, other concerned nations in order to ensure that salmon stocks are sustainable in the future, and NASCO is critical to that, you're absolutely right. Thank you. I now move to the next question, Claudia Beamish. Thank you, convener, and good morning to you, Mr Gove. I'd like to dig a little deeper into the structure of the environmental principles, and as you'll be aware, but just for the record, very briefly, this wasn't in the initial European withdrawal bill, as you'll know, and then there was a Lords amendment, which was rejected, as I understand it, by the Commons, and there was then an amendment, a new amendment, if I'm following it rightly, requiring the Secretary of State within six months to publish a draft bill in relation to the set of environment principles and certain duties on the Secretary of State to publish statements and to deal with enforcement arrangements. These environmental principles are extremely important to this committee and, of course, across the UK, and very, very quickly, myself and Mark Ruskell and others took forward these issues in our own backstop, as I would call it, continuity bill in relation to precautionary principle and other issues. Given the amendment on the maintenance of environmental principles that now stand, what are the plans to ensure compliance in this section and does it apply to Scottish-devolved competencies? You're absolutely right. You did a great job in clarifying what's been a complex legislative process to get us to this point, and you put your finger on the most important thing, which is that there are certain principles that have developed during our time in the European Union and which have a place in different locations in the development of European Union regulation and legislation, different principles that we need to ensure apply as we leave the European Union, things like the precautionary principle or the polluter pay principle. What we intend to do is to bring forward legislation in accordance with the amended EU withdrawal bill to set up a new environmental governance body, a new watchdog to replicate the functions that the European Commission had, and at the same time to lay out in primary legislation these principles and to say that the UK government must, every year, produce a policy statement outlining how it intends to give effect to all of those principles, and the position that I've taken with respect to the devolved administrations is I hope an accommodating one, which is that I am open completely to thinking from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about how our shared commitment to these principles and to appropriate governance should be given effect at a devolved level, and my view is that I have no prior preference as to how we do it. The important thing is that we need to give all our citizens a reassurance that these principles will be respected. That's encouraging, Mr Gove. What I'm wondering is you say you have no prior view as to how that should be developed, but are you able to make a commitment today to the Scottish Evolved Administration that you do plan to consult and perhaps even that the arrangements for the consultation will be done in partnership? That's a very fair point, yes. My view is that we've got to make this work across the United Kingdom and I will do everything I can to work with the Scottish Government in order to make sure that an ambition which I believe that we share can be given effect in a way that respects the devolution settlement. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr Rowley, do you want to come in at this question or not? Right. Thank you very much. Are you finished? So we now move to the next question. Mark Ruskell, Mr Ruskell, please. Follow up on that answer to that last question. Can you say a little bit more about what form the independent body for upholding environmental standards is likely to take? Perhaps the critical question here is what teeth will it have to hold Governments to account? Well, we think it will have considerable teeth. It will have the capacity to enforce compliance with the law. If it's the case that a Government has found in any respect, let's say with respect to air quality for example, to be operating in a way which is in breach of the law, initially that body would have the power to issue advisory notices, but ultimately it would have the power to take the Government to court and to ensure that we were, if we were in error, brought into line with the law. It's also the case that we envisage that this body should also have the power to conduct investigations and to issue reports. What we want to do is to make sure that all of the necessary disciplines that have grown up during the time that we've been in the European Union and that have been exercised through the institution of the Commission and also the ECJ can be replicated. There are analogies, parallels also with bodies like the New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. He or she has the capacity to launch investigations, hold ministers to account, and to make sure that the Government doesn't backslide on its environmental commitments. Okay, that sounds quite wide-ranging, but perhaps I could focus you on one area of Government policy. In an area where you've faced repeated court appearances alongside the Scottish Government as being in relation to air quality and the failure really to tackle legally binding European air quality limits. Let's take a Government decision to say that the decision this week to expand Heathrow airport by building a third runway. There's an argument there, a strong argument that this will impact on air quality, it will impact on the ability of the Government to meet those legal air quality standards. Do you believe that this new body should have the power to call in or even reverse a decision like that? I don't. I think you're absolutely right to say that the decision to authorise a third runway or to support a third runway at Heathrow or indeed any decision to expand airport capacity will have air quality considerations that we need to take into account. I should say actually that the biggest challenge is not so much the aviation, it's the ground transport in and around an expanded Heathrow that will pose the biggest air quality challenges, though I think that we can more than meet them by changing the way in which people travel to and from a hub airport like Heathrow. But I think that when it comes to calling things in that there is a planning process, that planning process is well understood. I think this environmental watchdog could offer advice about how planning processes might change in the future and how they could be improved, but I don't think that this body should second get individual planning decisions, but what it can do is that it can, if Government is, as you quite rightly point out, in breach of its legal obligations, it can say to Government, sorry, you do need to and it's time that you did face up to the law and act in accordance with it. You don't believe that that power should be extended to individual decisions that Government makes about development or policy which could be making an air quality problem worse? It should extend to policy decisions that Government makes, but it shouldn't extend to individual planning decisions. That's an important distinction because there are already and there should be protections in planning law and in planning procedures in order to make sure that environmental considerations and air quality considerations of course are a subset of that on it. I'm sure that the proof here is in the pudding, isn't it? If Heathrow third runway gets built, there are major air quality problems in the surrounding area and it's proven to not be successful, the mitigation measures that have been put into the planning development have not been successful, that's an error on the part of Government. What redress can be brought to that situation? What role could this body have then in challenging the pathway that Government has chosen? To take Heathrow as a case in point, the approval will depend on satisfying certain legal principles. Those legal principles on air quality and on habitat protection are very clearly laid out. The application and the development will only go ahead if it respects existing environmental provisions. If it is the case that the operator is breaking the law with respect to environmental or other provisions, appropriate steps can be taken, but I think it's important to draw a distinction between the planning process, between development control or what might happen after a planning application has been granted and also the prior purpose of a body like this, which is to make sure that the Government overall acts in accordance with law in the way in which it operates. What discussions have been held then with the devolved Administrations about a UK governance process? I outlined meetings with ministers representing all of the devolved Administrations, our approach towards environmental principles and governance, and the point that I made, similar to the point that I made to Claudia earlier, is that I hope in the best sense of the word agnostic about whether or not we have a UK wide body or we respect the devolution settlement and that there should be watchdogs that operate at a devolved level. My view is that we should work together. I won't attempt to second guess or lead Scottish ministers towards a particular conclusion. I'm happy to work together in order to give effect to whatever they think is the best way of making sure that we can all collectively meet the expectation that I think our citizens have to maintain these standards. Thank you very much. We now move to Mr Stuart Steamson, who's got a couple of questions. Thank you, convener. Mr Gove, my colleague Angus MacDonald introduced one pan-European body. There are a number of others that are part of the EU and some of which are not. European Environment Agency, URATM, European Chemicals Agency, European Maritime Safety Agency are just some of those which this committee might be interested in. What are the UK's government's plans and beliefs for future membership with or collaboration with these bodies in future? Mr Barney is trying to make some fairly discouraging statements in this regard. How do you respond? Mr Barney is a tough negotiator on behalf of the EU 27 and reflects the commission's position accurately at this stage in the negotiations. You ask about a range of agencies. There are some agencies that we would like to have associate membership of and there are some arrangements like for example a relationship with URATM where we've laid out how we believe the future could work. We've said as a government that we would like to be part of the European Chemicals Agency, the European Medicines Agency, the European Aviation Safety Agency on an associate membership basis. We believe that that's in the EU's interest as much as in our interest as well. As these negotiations go on, we'll see how the EU responds. I think it's fair to say that the position that either the EU 27 or individual member states may take at this stage in the negotiations isn't necessarily the position they'll take at the end. We've seen constructive movement during this negotiation process by Mr Barney on everything from scaling down the amount of contributions that he wanted from the UK after we left the EU through to the government's arrangements for EU citizens after we've left the EU as well. So one shouldn't necessarily take the opening bid or the opening statement as a thick red line. Nonetheless, there are some areas where it's clear that the UK Government wants to make its own arrangements and that's definitely reasonable. So what progress is being made in establishing replacement bodies that will assume responsibilities currently exercised from environmental issues and fundamentally what involvement has the Scottish Government had in that process so far? You're absolutely right. There are some areas where either existing agencies in the UK will take on additional responsibilities or there'll be the need for new infrastructure. My approach has been to the Scottish Government and to all the default administrations. One, to lay out bit by bit our proposals, but also to say to them that I'm more than happy for the Scottish Government to say to me, look, we know what it is that you want to achieve or we know what it is that's actually in the interests of Scotland. We believe that the best thing to do is X and I'm happy to look at any propositional proposal on a pragmatic basis. If purely for the sake of argument Minister Ewing were to say that there were particular responsibilities that he wished to see Marine Scotland exercise and he believed that it would be better if they were to exercise them in this way or that way, then we would look at it entirely pragmatically in the interests of Scotland's fishing fleet and their health of Scotland's marine environment. I think, Mr Gove, as I'm also a member of the Rural Committee, we may return to fishing in that context. Largely, we draw now to the end of the questioning that we had envisaged for you, Mr Gove. We thank you very much for your positive and constructive approach today, but before we finish, I wonder if there's anything that you might wish to add to what you have already said by way of a conclusion. I've just been passed a note by my clerk to say that maybe Angus MacDonald would like to ask a final question. Very much appreciated, convener. Since we have you here, Mr Gove, the issue of rewilding has been getting a lot of coverage in recent months. I'm curious to hear what your views on the reintroduction of the links are and can you provide farmers on both sides of the border with reassurances that if reintroduced, it won't be to their economic detriment, but indeed the detriment of their own livestock? Absolutely. The point is well made. Like Minister Cunningham, I am always interested in the possibility of the reintroduction or the better provision of support for native species that have either disappeared or have come close to extinction. One of the things that I've done south of the border is, of course, encourage in a controlled way in specific sites the reintroduction of beaver. Links, however, lays a whole battle load of other issues of which I'm all too well aware. All I will say at this stage is, of course, it's for natural England as the appropriate body to look at any application, but quite a high bar would have to be crossed. One of the aspects of that bar would be exactly as you say, making sure that local farmers felt confident that there would be no economic or other damage as a result of the reintroduction. So, as I say, that's a very, very high bar, but it's one that will be policed by an independent body, not by me. Okay, thank you. All right, thank you, and if there are being no further questions, is there anything you'd like to say finally before we hand over to the next committee? Just to say thank you very much for the opportunity to give evidence. I'm grateful for your flexibility in doing so, and I hope because I always enjoy visiting Scotland that there'll be an opportunity for me to come and give evidence to you again before we formally leave the European Union if you'd like me to do so, and I'll do everything I can to make sure I can do that in person. Thank you very much, Mel. Thank you for taking the time to be with us today, and we will just move now to the next part of our meeting. The committee expects to meet on 4 September, and we will hear from stakeholders on its scrutiny of the draft budget for the 2019-20. As agreed earlier, the committee will now continue in private session in committee room 3. Again, our thanks to you, Mr Gove, and that's clear this meeting closed. No, we're moving into private session.