Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have had discussions with officials, and, as the cabinet secretary with responsibility in this area, I am certainly keen to be advised on what impact the UK Government’s cuts to its aid budget will have on our operations. Countries such as Malawi are classified as less of a priority for the UK Government than tier 1. One can understand why Gaza, Ukraine or Sudan are in tier 1. However, if that leads to other countries not being a priority and to aid being cut, where we have a particular locus, as we do with our partner countries, that will have consequences for us. I need advice on whether that is part of the review or consideration. I am very well advised by colleagues who, more often than not, have a background in the Foreign Office and the previous Department for International Development. We have very talented people in the Scottish Government who advise on these matters, but we are going to have to consider this.

The issue affects not only countries such as ours but countries, such as Ireland, that also have a presence in certain countries. When I met my opposite number in the Irish Government, Neale Richmond TD, he raised this issue, too, because there is a concern on the part of some countries that are not deprioritising humanitarian aid that the UK and the United States are suddenly cutting their international aid significantly. That will have an impact in countries where we are trying to make a difference, so we will have to work out what the impact will be and how we can ameliorate the cut in aid.

However, to go back to the initial part of Mr Brown’s question about funding for Gaza, I have been advised that, in the immediate circumstances, the drop off in aid that a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, have announced is not yet impacting the volume of aid that could be taken into Gaza. That could well change as the cuts come in—that is entirely possible—and we should be aware of that.

Another facet of aid cuts is that we should not lose sight of the impact that they have on our aid partners, some of which are international organisations. People might not be aware that the European headquarters of Mercy Corps is in Edinburgh. Therefore, the impact, including on humanitarian organisations, is being felt here as well as in the countries that should be getting the aid, which, sadly, is being cut by the UK.

Official records are taken of all official meetings.

I am talking about formal discussions.

As Mr Bibby knows, the Scottish Government has an office in Brussels—

As we know, the First Minister gives evidence to committees of the Parliament, so that question is best directed to him, but I am happy to update the convener and other colleagues in due course.

If I can answer through the chair—I think that that is the custom and practice here.

There is a false equivalence between the formal relations between Governments within the United Kingdom in relation to processes that involve negotiations with the European Union, and civil servants speaking to other UK civil servants in UK Government departments or meeting or discussing things in passing with civil servants of other countries in Brussels in order to be informed, which is their job. The fundamental difference between those two things should be obvious to absolutely everybody.

It is about the relative importance of the formal process that ministers of the UK Government attend and through which they negotiate outcomes in devolved areas of responsibility, which are then not reported as a matter of course to the devolved administrations in the United Kingdom—indeed, that kind of process has not been working as it should—and the process of one finding out about the generality of negotiations, which is the talk of SW1, Brussels and the civil servants in Edinburgh about the progress that has been made.

To Mr Bibby’s point, no formal discussions took place as part of the process—unfortunately so, because Scotland is devolved and it is a United Kingdom Government that negotiates on our behalf as part of the UK’s constitutional settlement.

Good morning. It is a pleasure to join you in a public session of the committee’s deliberations. Thank you for asking me to come back following the publication of the committee’s second report on the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement. I am happy to address questions that arise from that report and I will provide a general update on UK-EU relations in accordance with our working arrangements agreed in 2024.

Let me start with the UK-EU summit that was held on 19 May and by repeating the words of EU Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, in welcoming the agreement. She said:

“We are friends, and we are Europeans, we are very like-minded. We share the same interests and the same values”.

The Scottish Government is of the same view. We welcome all attempts to rebuild relations with the EU at this critical moment in international affairs, and we embrace the progress that has been made. Indeed, the Scottish Government wants both parties to go further and faster in their reset and to implement the most ambitious package of measures possible.

The deal announced at the summit will bring only small relief compared with the damage that has been caused by the Westminster Government. Although the UK Government congratulates itself on staying within its red lines of not rejoining the single market or the customs union and remaining against the free movement of people, those red lines remain deeply damaging to Scotland. The Scottish Government maintains a much more ambitious vision for Scotland’s relationship with Europe that, of course, involves full membership.

First, let me welcome important elements of the summit agreement. The defence and security partnership is urgently necessary for the safety of our continent and will allow Scotland’s defence capacities to play their part. Many other parts of the agreement broadly align with the policy positions that we have shared with the UK Government through position papers that have been published in the past 12 months. The Scottish agriculture and food and drink sectors should be able to export their products without going through the checks that were imposed by Brexit. Young people in Scotland should be able to study, work and live in the rest of Europe, and we, in turn, can welcome EU citizens here. Closer co-operation on energy should allow us to benefit from greener energy and confront, together with our European neighbours, the shared challenges of climate change.

There is an urgent need for those initiatives to be negotiated, agreed and delivered quickly, and we will put all the support that we can towards their rapid conclusion. We offer our support, but we need the UK Government to better engage with Scottish interests and the Scottish Government. We are deeply disappointed that the UK Government did not share draft texts with the Scottish Government or, indeed, with any other devolved Government before the summit. The fact that the fisheries agreement was reached without our being given any notice—much less with any involvement from us—is testament enough. Given the sheer number of devolved responsibilities involved, the Scottish Government must be more closely involved and included in forthcoming talks, not least to protect the role of the Scottish Parliament. The intergovernmental structures must be tested this year, and they must be tested through their continuous operation and by meaningful engagement.

I will finish by addressing the committee’s second report on the trade and co-operation agreement. I welcome the report and specifically note the committee’s recommendation on the creation of a music export office. That matches the undertaking that we have given in our international cultural strategy to support people working in the culture sector to realise the full potential of international activity. A forthcoming feasibility study will inform how we can best support international cultural activity and overcome challenges for people working in the sector. I will be happy to provide further updates as we make progress on that work, and I am happy to address wider questions from the committee.

I stand by what I said in the Parliament. It makes me smile now, because Mr Kerr would have heard other voices in the chamber pooh-poohing any suggestion that fisheries were being used as a way to get agreement. It turned out that it was very much a part of making sure that an agreement could be reached.

There are some statistics that illustrate Mr Adam’s point. In economic terms, the UK Government’s own figures estimate that this deal will add £9 billion to the UK’s national income by 2040, which represents just 0.2 per cent of gross domestic product. That must be compared with the loss in GDP caused by Brexit, which is estimated to be 20 times that—4 per cent of GDP. Those estimates are from the Office for Budget Responsibility, which, as I am sure all members realise, is an organisation that is worth listening to. The point that Mr Adam is making is very real.

I stand by everything that I said in the chamber in that debate.