Seòmar agus comataidhean

Ultimately, the all-Government responsibility lies with the First Minister. As I think everybody knows, the sustainable development goals emerged from the United Nations, so they are an external affairs area of responsibility. However, Mr Ruskell has made the point that the matter cannot sit within a silo, and it must be seen across Government.

Mr Ruskell’s question is well timed as it allows me to underline the next steps in reflecting on how we capture all that in our reporting to ensure that any concerns that he has about such matters being seen only in silo terms are much more generally understood. For very obvious reasons, they cannot be understood in only one part of Government.

That is a really good example. What Mr Brown points to is correct. It is my experience, when meeting with European decision makers, whether in national capitals or in European institutions, that there is a very strong predisposition towards Scotland as a pro-European nation and a wish to be as helpful to Scotland as they can be.

A very good, concrete example of where we have an opportunity to make the most of that is the energy question that I alluded to in response to Mr Ruskell. I do not think that it is widely reported here that the German economy is going through one of its most significant transitions since the industrial revolution. Germany is moving away from a reliance on hydrocarbons—in particular, Russian gas—and toward fuelling its engineering-based economy with hydrogen. It is doing that right now. However, Germany is unable to provide its indigenous industry with the amount of renewable energy, in the form of electricity or hydrogen, that it requires, so it will need to import that. Scotland and our northern European neighbours can be a big part of the answer.

When I speak to German decision makers, as I did recently in Berlin, they tell me that they are really keen to be able to import—to buy, so it would be a benefit to the sector in Scotland—hydrogen and hydrogen-related products as soon as possible. For that to happen, we will require interconnection between Scotland and Germany, and we will require the UK Government to reach regulatory agreement with the European Union relating to that.

To Mr Brown’s question, then, I would say yes, there is massive goodwill and massive interest, but our relationship is determined not just by our direct contacts. Indeed, that is one of the reasons for our having a strong external affairs approach—we are trying to maximise the opportunities that we have through the goodwill that exists for Scotland—but we are still relying on a UK Government with reserved powers in relation to these energy questions to land that success for the energy transition in Scotland.

We will do everything that we can to prepare the way. We will say to UK Government ministers, “This is a huge opportunity. Please, can you act?”, and I have impressed that on the outgoing Government and will be impressing it on any potential incoming Government. After all, the Germans are acting, regardless of what we do in Scotland and the UK. Either we can be at the forefront of this energy transition on the European continent or we can miss the bus, and it will be decision makers in London who will ultimately determine whether that is the case.

I wish that that were not so; I wish that we could just get on with this ourselves; I wish that we were in the EU; I wish that we were able to agree the regulations ourselves; and I wish that we were able to make progress on the subsea interconnector, which involves powers that are currently reserved. However, we cannot. We will do what we can, but ultimately it will be UK ministers who will determine the speed and the success of this happening. If it fails, they will bear the responsibility for that.

I am at the convener’s discretion here, because, as I think Mr Bibby knows, there will be two evidence-taking sessions this morning, the second of which will relate to the Government’s international network and its evaluation. If the convener wishes me to speak to that in this evidence session, I am happy to do so, but would you prefer that I did so in the next evidence session?

In Ireland and its diaspora, you have pointed to an area from which we can take a lot of lessons. Ireland has a very large diaspora; so has Scotland, but for decades Ireland has been pursuing a focused diaspora policy with a dedicated minister. It is a policy priority not just for its Department of Foreign Affairs but for other departments in the Government of Ireland to do as much as possible to develop and support the Irish diaspora and, in addition, to use it as part of its mission to improve Ireland’s exports and inward investment. That has been a significant influence on our Scottish connections framework, which is a relatively new strategy and is our approach to the diaspora.

One of the lessons that we have taken on board is that the nature of the diaspora is changing, which is a consideration in Ireland as much as it is in any other country that takes its diaspora seriously. We have the significant historical and heritage diaspora that we know about, particularly in the anglosphere of the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. However, there are other aspects of Scotland’s relationship with the world that have not received as much attention but certainly should, now.

If committee members look at the connections framework—if they have not, I recommend that they do—they will see that it embraces a much wider understanding of what a diaspora is. Yes—it includes people who, historically, have hailed from Scotland in one way or another, but it also includes people whose connection to Scotland might be very current. They might have studied here, they might have lived here, they might just like it here, or they might have just discovered that they have a connection to Scotland.

One relatively new area in that respect is the understanding that a significant number of African-Americans have Scottish heritage. Indeed, as part of this year’s tartan day, I was part of a large number of events in Washington DC and New York City and met a large number of people to talk about this new initiative in relation to Scotland’s diaspora.

I go back to your initial question: what can we learn from a country such as Ireland? We have learned that taking diaspora seriously is a good thing to do, and we are doing it. We have published for the first time two resources that did not exist before and which are available through Scotland’s digital shopfront at www.scotland.org. First, one can register to be part of Scottish diaspora organisations around the world. Secondly, if one lives outside Scotland but wants to remain connected, one can, as an individual, sign up to be part of that online diaspora connection. In addition, through our international networks—that is, our nine international offices, and wider than that, our SDI network, our trade envoys and our GlobalScot network—diaspora is also forming part of the work that is being undertaken. That was not the case before, either.

This is a really good example of where we can learn from best practice, because Ireland has been taking this issue very seriously for a long time. We, too, are taking it seriously now, and we are going to reach out as best we can, not just to the historic and heritage diaspora but to the wider diaspora that, among other things, includes tens of thousands of students from other countries who have studied in Scotland. For example, thousands of students in China are now part of Scotland’s wider diaspora, too.

It is very much a moving target. With certain things, it would make sense for the UK to align itself with European standards. A current example of that would be energy, given Scotland’s significant potential in renewable energy and exporting it either as electricity or as hydrogen-related products such as ammonia or hydrogen itself. Those things require regulatory agreement with the European Union, and that currently does not exist.

As a result, we in the Scottish Government need to impress on UK Government colleagues in the current and probably outgoing Government—and I hope that those in a likely incoming UK Government are listening to this—that we require regulatory agreement and alignment on this issue, so that we can reach our full potential. We are not in the room, so we are having to ask others to act on our behalf, which they might or might not do. They might have other things that are a higher priority. However, I am doing everything that I can to communicate to decision makers in London, Brussels and other EU national capitals, particularly those such as Berlin with an interest in the likes of energy importation, that, with goodwill, we could be in a win-win situation.

If anything, this issue underlines why not being in the room is a disadvantage. If we are to use the TCA mechanism—which we will, because it is the only formal structure that we have—all I will get is an occasional meeting with a junior minister in the Foreign Office, as has been the case up until now; they will sit and listen; they will say that they are hearing what we are saying; and then they might or might not act. We are able to observe what happens—as I have, having sat in on meetings with Maroš Šefcovic and the previous UK Foreign Secretary, and having seen certain issues that we had impressed on the UK Government as important being raised, while other issues were not.

We are going through a number of stages here. We might be listened to, we might be heard and then things might or might not be acted on. We are beholden to others acting on our behalf, and their having good will and an understanding that what we have raised might be a good thing. We might come on to this later in the evidence session, but I can highlight the recent example of a proposal with regard to the reintroduction of free movement for younger people, which would be a good thing—

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee today and to exchange views on the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement, which has been an important focus of Scottish Government work since the agreement came into force on 1 May 2021.

I very much welcome the committee undertaking such a wide-ranging inquiry into the treaty’s implementation and hearing evidence from a range of witnesses. From the evidence that you have taken so far, it is clear that the Scottish Government’s priorities coincide, in many cases, with the priorities of stakeholders in business, education and civil society.

A large part of our work in recent months has been to interact with as many stakeholders as possible, including the UK domestic advisory group and the Scottish advisory forum on Europe. We are keen to ensure that we hear what they say and gather evidence from their expertise.

It is particularly timely for the committee to be carrying out this work at present, because we expect the review that is provided for in the agreement to take place in 2025-26, although it is not yet clear whether that will lead to consideration of substantive changes. The elections this year, in both the European Union and the UK, might also lead to new scenarios and to opportunities for improvement.

I turn first to the big picture. The Government strongly affirms that Scotland shares the EU’s vision of peace and co-operation; the founding principles of the European project are universal and are rooted in a belief in human dignity and freedom, expressed through democracy. We also share Europe’s global challenges and are determined to work together on shared solutions. The war in Ukraine, the conflict in Gaza and the continuing threat of climate change make the scale of the global challenges very clear.

Scotland voted clearly to remain in the EU, with majorities for remain in every local authority area in the country. Despite that clear democratic expression, the UK Government’s hard Brexit has been imposed on us, leading to many of the difficulties that your inquiry has already brought to light.

It is welcome that we have seen a modest improvement in the EU-UK relationship in recent months. It is overwhelmingly in Scotland’s interest for there to be a much more positive and mutually beneficial relationship between the EU and UK, and we will do our part to help to create that where we can.

As members know, the Scottish Government is committed to maintaining alignment with the EU, where such alignment is possible and will be meaningful in protecting and advancing the high standards that we share.

We continue to be a proactive and constructive participant in EU matters by engaging closely with TCA fora and by wider engagement with EU institutions and member states, including our active network of international offices and our support for inward visits here at home. For example, I had the pleasure in April of welcoming the EU ambassador for a busy programme of engagement with Scottish stakeholders. The Scottish Government is thereby doing everything that it can to mitigate the damage of a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for, minimise divergence with the EU and ease Scotland’s eventual return.

I turn to the priorities that the Scottish Government has identified in its work around the TCA, after which I hope that we can discuss our respective approaches to the challenges that we see.

I will focus for a moment on the higher education sector, which is so crucial to Scotland’s economy, society and reputation. Scotland benefited disproportionately from the horizon Europe and Erasmus+ programmes. We are pleased that, in January this year, the UK finally associated to the horizon Europe programme. Collaborating internationally is vital for our education and research institutions, and the Scottish Government has continually urged the UK Government to find a pathway back to horizon. We now need to ensure that we maximise Scottish participation in the programme, and I am pleased that work on that has already begun.

One of the fundamental rights in the EU—that of free movement—offered unique opportunities to our young people while we were in the EU. The Erasmus+ programme was a key element of that, and we have been strongly urging the UK Government to re-associate to the programme. We welcomed the recent proposal of the European Commission to open negotiations with the UK Government on youth mobility. I can only hope that that issue will receive fresh consideration after the UK election.

The committee has already heard about many other issues, which the Scottish Government also sees as important priorities and which include a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and other trade easements, enhanced mobility arrangements for services and creative professionals, and electricity trading and wider energy co-operation, through which Scotland’s hydrogen sector has so much to offer.

There is no doubt that we have the technical knowledge to address all those issues. What we need is a change in mindset and to move to a place of trust where we can do business together.

I look forward to discussing with the committee those issues and other matters that members might wish to raise.

I and colleagues are always open to suggestions. There is an on-going dialogue with Scotland’s business organisations, which constantly feed back their experience about what is or is not working well for them. If there are any gaps in that provision, I am certain that people would be keen to hear what they are.

There is dialogue and regular discussion about all those things and I very much hope that suggestions are acted on—none have been brought to my attention that have not been. Mr Bibby or the committee might have examples of areas where there is room to improve. That is a good example of the purpose that inquiries such as this one serve in trying to make a difference where we can, notwithstanding that I hope that there is an appreciation that we are operating in a hard Brexit environment, which the Conservative Party and the Labour Party support.

Regular dialogue takes place between Scottish Government officials and their UK Government counterparts. In general, that does not involve ministers from meeting to meeting. Those are technical discussions that take place across a range of specialist subject areas. However, I found that there was an improvement in the pre-TCA meeting dialogue between me and Leo Docherty, when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Europe. I had two meetings with him in relation to technical discussions on seed potatoes and other issues that the committee will be well aware of. There was definitely a marked improvement in how those discussions went. That reflected the fact that, in the discussions between officials, the message had been heard.

There are a number of subject areas in which there are technical areas—on seed potatoes, bivalve molluscs and so on—where, with good will, one might be able to make progress. In those areas, discussions have been held between officials, and then between me and my ministerial opposite numbers. There were also discussions on cultural performers and the restrictions that they are facing with cabotage and so on that have made things difficult for touring professionals.

The dialogue happens. In some respects, the situation is better than before. There have been more meetings than there were previously, and I know that some of the issues have been raised, but that is not the same thing as actually being able to deliver in relation to them. In that regard, we discuss where there are shortcomings. We have discussed the issues on seed potatoes, bivalve molluscs and touring professionals, which are three high-priority areas for us to try and get some progress on. UK Government ministers have said that they have heard our concerns and will raise them. We are allowed to view those discussions with the European Union, but we are not allowed to take part in them ourselves.

To date, on those specific examples, we have not yet got the outcomes that we are looking for. There is a system that brings our officials together and now brings ministers together, but we really need to look at outcomes and not just processes. The processes are better than they were. That is definitely the case, although there is still significant room for improvement. However, with regard to outcomes, there is still some way to go.

Nick Leake, would you like to add something?

Having called for the longest of times for the UK Government to rejoin horizon—incidentally, and perhaps we will come on to this, having also done the same for Erasmus+ and the creative Europe programme—it has now moved very much into the academic and research space, as Mr Ruskell has already identified. I must confess that that is not my area of responsibility in Government. I appreciate, as I think that he and committee members do, how important horizon is to the university sector, but my education and higher education colleagues will be in a much stronger position to answer that.

However, I know that it is being taken very seriously and that the opportunities are very significant. Having spoken to university administrators, including at Edinburgh university, I know how much they welcome a return to the horizon project. That underlines our view that it is necessary to continue the process by rejoining Erasmus+ and the creative Europe programme.