Seòmar agus comataidhean

My understanding is that the agreement on the roll-over on fisheries and its length was not finalised before the summit weekend and, indeed, that it was raised on the weekend that the agreement was reached. How do we know that? We know that from discussions in Brussels, not from the UK Government.

I will continue in my explanation of the context to the process, which I think is very important. At the meeting on 12 May, at which Nick Thomas-Symonds said to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments that the UK Government was making progress in all of those areas, I and colleagues said that we would wish to have not only a readout, without detail and documentation, but rather detail and documentation.

Until I raised it, the word “fisheries” was not mentioned by the UK Government. There was a readout of what would constitute part of an EU-UK agreement at a summit, but it was only when I asked—after a lengthy introduction and scene setting from the UK Government that did not mention fishing—what the UK Government’s position was, that it was mentioned. To say that I had an elliptical reply would be an understatement. There was no detail. Euphemisms for stability were used, but there was no mention of roll-over or of the length of time for which there should be such a thing. My position is that that is not a reset—it is not a proper relationship, it is not respectful and it is not how we should do business, full stop.

When the United Kingdom was in the European Union, there were Scottish Government officials and officials from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and other organisations, in Brussels, sitting in rooms in which they were able to inform the process for agreements that were being reached. Documentation was shared, and there was a conversation about process. With this agreement, there was not.

With regard to other issues, we were saying in principle that we wished the UK to rejoin Erasmus+ and to re-associate with the creative Europe programme. We literally had the summit, an agreement and a read-out that said, “We have agreed this”. I then said something like, “What happened to Creative Europe?” and the answer that I got was, “Well, that just did not happen.” We are not clear on why it did not happen. Was it because the UK tried and it did not happen? Did the European Union side bring it up and the UK said no? We do not know.

The process is not working properly. The substance, in significant part, is welcome. It is important that we understand both those things in order to ensure, when things are perhaps more challenging, that the process is robust enough to get us through all that. I have made that point to the UK Government subsequently. Process matters, and that should not involve keeping people in the dark and telling them after the event.

Sorry—there is an additional fact that I should add, because there will no doubt be a follow-up question in relation to interministerial relations between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government in important policy areas. Mr Brown mentioned fishing. In the normal run of events, that should have been discussed at the interministerial group involving Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands and the UK’s Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The last three meetings of that group in the run-up to the agreement were cancelled, all by the UK side, so there was not a substantive meeting on that.

On culture, the last interministerial group meeting took place in May 2024 and since then, further meetings have been delayed repeatedly, so no discussion was possible, in the run-up to the summit, on the creative Europe programme and on the mobility of touring artists.

Is that really how we want to do intergovernmental relations? No, it is not.

I totally agree with Mr Harvie. As a matter of course, we should expect to have good working relations all the time. Of course, one might disagree about things or have different priorities, but where there is a temptation for Parliaments or Governments not to explain themselves to others, because they do not have to, that is a route that, unfortunately, other Governments or Parliaments might choose.

Mr Harvie mentioned Wallonia, which is a very interesting case in point. Unlike the UK, Wallonia and Flanders have devolved rights in relation to treaties. We do not have those here. Although people keep talking about the Scottish devolution settlement being among the strongest in the world, that is a very good example of where it is not. As a result of the treaty involvement of both Wallonia and Flanders, the Belgian federal Government has to work as well as it can with Wallonia and Flanders—because it has to. That is the challenge that we have; in some areas, we operate on the basis of conventions, à la Sewel, for example. That is why we are having discussions about whether that convention should actually be put on a statutory basis.

At some point, the convener will no doubt want to ask about the progress that has been made in relation to the UK Government’s approach to the Sewel convention. A memorandum of understanding was promised, and I am happy to come back at any stage if you wish to discuss that, convener.

Well, I imagine that a UK Government that says that it is in favour of a reset and of being transparent would give evidence in public to a committee such as this, to explain how it is doing things. The record would then show an explanation of why we are dealing with the systematic cancellation of intergovernmental relations meetings, in advance of important issues. If the answers to the closed questions that I mentioned before are unsatisfactory, or if the assurances that are being given in public about how things will be different are not actually being delivered on, I would not rule anything out in trying to help things to get better.

For the record, I want everybody to understand that that is not just the position of the Scottish Government. It is a concern that is shared by colleagues in the Welsh Labour Party, the Sinn Féin First Minister of Northern Ireland and the Democratic Unionist Party Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. We do not find ourselves alone in this situation. If things do not change, we will have to look closely at how we make them change.

It turns out that it most certainly was not gossip and hearsay, given the conversations that have taken place subsequently. When one is in London and speaking to the European Union’s representative office in the UK, one can ask about much of this—it would be open to the committee to do that—and it turns out that what I have described is exactly how things progressed. One might even be able to read about it on the front pages of some newspapers, too.

I will revert to the committee.

I agree with Mr Harvie that structural changes are needed in a devolved context, although I do not believe that devolved governance is the optimal solution for Scotland’s governance. I agree that, unless there is a requirement on the UK Government to have better intergovernmental relations, that will too often, sadly, just not be a priority. That is not good enough.

—and the officials who work there speak with the UK mission to the European Union and, as is the way in the way Brussels works, with officials from right across the institutions as a matter of course. That is what all representative offices in Brussels do, and it is through those channels that one often hears about where progress is being made. Is that the optimal way of finding out about progress in negotiations? No, it is not. I am sorry that that was the extent of the information that we had because the UK Government was not sharing information with us.

I am sure that the committee knows this, but much of the agreement that was reached between the United Kingdom Government and the European Union at the summit was at high level and in principle, and the details of that agreement have, in significant part, not yet been agreed. Our understanding—from what we were told by the European Union’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, not by the United Kingdom Government—is that the negotiating mandates for those detailed discussions are hoped to be agreed for the European Union by the summer break. The timetable for the UK’s negotiating mandate is not clear to the Scottish Government; neither is the process by which those negotiations might then take place or the involvement of devolved Administrations, which have significant locus in those issues.

In relation to your question, implementation would follow the detail of an agreement because, otherwise, there is nothing to implement beyond the high-level agreement that there shall be a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and that progress will be made on Erasmus+. The details of those things have not been agreed, but they will be.

Another thing that was pointed out to us from the European Union side—again, rather than from the UK side—is that there will be another UK-EU summit next year. The understanding is that there has been a summit and an agreement this year, that negotiations will begin this year and—one would imagine—significant progress on the detail should be made by next year’s summit. That is the best that I can guess, in significant part because the United Kingdom Government has not made clear to us how it expects matters to progress in detail.

First, to deal with the known knowns, you are absolutely right to point out the context of an SPS agreement—an agrifoods and veterinary agreement—that will have a significant impact in particular on the food and drink sector, which is so important to the Scottish economy. One reason why it is so important to the sector is that, when such an agreement is in place, it will obviate the requirements for a significant part of the border checks that the UK Government has not yet implemented. The last UK Government did not implement those checks—it put things back—and the current UK Government has not yet implemented them. Were it to do so, that would add delays and problems that, as we know, have already caused significant challenge, not least in the agriculture and food sector, in which delays involving live products—shellfish, for example, which is a significant export to the continental European market—are very problematic.

That is one of the big prizes of having what I prefer to call an agriculture and food agreement—the SPS agreement—and why we lobbied the UK Government very hard for there to be one. I cannot imagine that the UK Government would wish to introduce border checks before such an agreement were reached, for the reasons that I have outlined. I have had no information about what plans the UK Government has on the timing, sequencing or treatment of that issue, but perhaps Mr Graham, who is sitting next to me, will have something to update the committee on.