Seòmar agus comataidhean

We do not want to omit key parts of the facts about the negative impact that Brexit has had on the fishing industry across the piece.

No, you cannot, because I am speaking through the chair. In doing so, I am finishing my answer by saying that, as soon as any formal positions are outlined by the European Union or the UK Government, I will be happy to update the committee on them. I have seen none so far. I have no doubt that issues around fisheries will come up at some point. That is what Mr Kerr has reported to the committee today, and I do not disagree with that. However, the issue as such has not formed any formal part of conversations that I have had with the UK Government or, indeed, with European Union interlocutors. I do not doubt that it will come up as an issue formally at some stage, but it is not formally part of discussions at present.

Our position has definitely been heard. I know that because the minister in question has acknowledged that the priorities that we and other devolved Governments in the UK share are things on which we have been listened to.

We are all political practitioners so we have to acknowledge that the UK Government is wrestling with how to deal with immigration as an issue and is feeling the political heat from the populist right. I think that that is a significant part of the reason why there is nervousness in the UK Government about anything that might create an impression that the doors are being opened to more people to arrive, if I can put it like that. That is not where the debate about mobility or migration is in Scotland—it is just a different reality. From a Scottish point of view, I see the danger that mobility and migration are simply relegated in importance because of the UK Government’s political position on the issue.

This goes back a little bit to Mr Bibby’s question about different people’s positions in the discussions. I foresee circumstances where a UK Government might say, “We want an agriculture, food and drink agreement, an SPS agreement” and the European Union might say, “That is very interesting. We are not disinterested in doing such a thing but we are very interested in a mobility agreement for young people”. That is an example of where one might see different relative priorities of the European Union and of the UK Government. It just happens to be that on this question, the Scottish Government’s position is more aligned with that of the European Union.

Are we formally part of that trade-off, if I can call it that? No, we are not. Should we be? Absolutely yes, we should. That is what happens in other European countries. Indeed, the electorate here was promised—was it not?—that we would be in the closest position to a federal position, and that is what federal government involves.

Having said that, I am a pragmatist. If I can, I want to encourage UK Government colleagues to understand that youth mobility is a good thing and to realise the damage that has been done by limiting young people’s opportunities and what that is doing in our universities and our schools—the fact that they are now almost totally bereft of language assistants is just one example of the end of the freedom of movement, and it is a thoroughly bad thing. Those things could be remedied through a mobility agreement. I think that the UK Government is trying; if it is going to have to agree to something like that, it wants it to sound more limited, rather than giving the impression of its being too wide.

I am in favour of a public healthcare system that is free at the point of access for anybody who requires it, and I would expect that for young Scottish people anywhere else in Europe. I hope that that answers your question.

We were talking about fishing and seafood a moment ago, so I will use that sector as an example. The export of Scottish seafood to markets such as France or Spain is extremely important, and time is of the essence in that regard, as seafood needs to be very fresh and exports should happen very quickly. If the UK Government were to introduce border controls that led to any delay in exporting, it would cause massive problems in that sector. That is why I have said that it is in the interests of Scotland, the rest of the UK and the European Union to have an agriculture, food and drink agreement—an SPS agreement—that will obviate the necessity for high-handed border controls, which is what will come in unless there is a deal.

It would be good for us not to get ahead of ourselves but to understand that this is perhaps a moment in time when there is an opportunity to reach a good agreement. It does not compare with being part of the common market, with being part of the single market, or being a member state of the European Union, but out of the bad situation that we have found ourselves in, which has had a negative impact on the fishing sector in Scotland, we could perhaps, as part of the negotiations, reach an agreement that will insure the industry against a worsening of its situation because of border controls that are yet to be introduced.

I have no doubt that parts of the service sector have been trading very well. We should encourage that, and that is exactly what the Scottish Government and its agencies do.

It is also fair to say that there are impediments and that we should take the opportunity of reducing them, if we can. I hope that Mr Kerr agrees that there is no artificial ceiling to our ambition in supporting the Scottish service sector. In relation to professional recognition of qualifications or the provision of legal services, there are undoubtedly constraints and downsides, which have been evidenced to the committee.

Yes, there is a difference between trade in services and trade in goods with the European Union—that is a statement of fact. It is also a statement of fact that there are impediments. I would not want to downplay those areas and say that they are insignificant and do not matter because some parts of the sector are doing okay. I encourage our UK Government colleagues to work out ways in which we can ensure that, where there are constraints and impediments in the service sector that have technical solutions, the UK and the EU can reach agreement on those solutions.

Yes, I absolutely believe that it can be done, because when we deal with the facts—as opposed to the rhetoric that we have heard from some quarters this morning—it is obvious that there is no comparison between the UK’s Turing and Taith schemes and Erasmus+. Between 2014 and 2020, Scottish universities were awarded on average €12.1 million per year through Erasmus+. Scottish universities are currently awarded less than half that value—just over £5 million—through the Turing scheme, and they are also becoming less competitive at securing funding for mobility.

If we are to deal with the scale of the challenge, I think that it is important that we acknowledge the facts. Data from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service shows that, between 2016 and 2024, there was an 81 per cent decrease in the number of acceptances by EU-domiciled students of places at Scottish universities. The largest decrease in EU acceptances came in 2021, which coincided with a change in student support for EU students. We expect the 2023-24 figures to be published during this committee session, and we expect a further decline in the number of EU students.

I make a final point for the record, so that everybody has the facts at their disposal. The loss of Erasmus+ funding is greater than just the impact on universities. For example, in the final year of Scotland’s last Erasmus+ cycle, £26.4 million was awarded across Scotland’s education sector. In the current year of the Turing scheme, Scottish institutions have been awarded £6.9 million. It should be obvious to us all that the Turing scheme and the Taith scheme are not a match for being part of the Erasmus+ programme.

The good news—in the context of this evidence session, at this time, given the early discussions that are about to take place on a more formal basis—is that being part of Erasmus+ is on the table and on offer from the European Union. If we were to listen to our institutions—our universities and those in the wider education sector—they would tell us, as they have told you, how much they would wish to be part of the Erasmus+ programme. That is why the Scottish Government is making that point to the UK Government.

For the record, the decrease is therefore worse than 81 per cent, which should give us all cause for concern.

The fact that the UK left Erasmus+ has been massively detrimental to young people. We remember, of course, that the UK Prime Minister at the time, Boris Johnson, gave an assurance to the House of Commons that that would not be the case. He said that the UK would remain in the Erasmus+ scheme and lauded what it had delivered for young people. I agree with him on that. I will say more about that once I have spoken about culture. The UK’s withdrawal from Erasmus+ did not need to happen. It was unnecessary and was a form of self-harm from the point of view of younger people’s life chances.

Similarly, the UK did not need to leave the creative Europe programme. Members of Scotland’s creative community are absolutely clear about their desire for Scotland and the UK to be part of that programme. They look at other third countries that are members of it and see how those countries benefit from being part of it, and they do not understand why the UK is not.

I would strongly encourage the UK Government to look at both those areas, in the same way that the previous UK Government did in relation to the horizon programme, which is a similar programme for university and wider research. It was acknowledged that it was a big mistake to leave that programme. The university sector was keen to rejoin it, and the most recent UK Conservative Government realised that the UK could again play a part in it.

I see Erasmus+ and creative Europe in exactly the same way. There is a willingness among European Union countries and institutions for the UK to rejoin those schemes. I very much hope that that will be the case because, for young people and people in our creative sector, that would go a long way to ending the self-harm that we have had to endure since Brexit. On a more positive note, it would enable us to mend and rebuild educational opportunities for young people to study and learn, and it would facilitate international co-operation for our creative sector.

That, too.