Seòmar agus comataidhean

No. Unsurprisingly, I do not agree with Mr Kerr, who I think is confusing the outcomes that, I think, we both share in wanting to ensure that detrimental approaches are not taken to managing the single market in general, with support for the internal market act. I am unaware of evidence having been presented by the organisations that he quotes that they require the internal market act to stay in place. I would be very grateful to see that—

I think that it is fair to observe two things. First, there has not been significant progress between the UK and the European Union so far. Secondly, preparations are under way in Brussels, London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast for forthcoming meetings in which more substantive progress can be made. That is the stage that we are at.

I observe that the UK Government has been taking the issue more seriously within Government, which is welcome. There have been changes to the machinery in the UK Government to deal with that, including a new Cabinet committee on Europe, which the Prime Minister chairs.

Clearly, the UK Government is thinking about what is coming up. It would be remiss not to draw attention to the changing geostrategic peril that we all feel in Europe at present, and that dimension will perhaps loom larger in everybody’s considerations, here and in the other capitals, of how we work together.

What can I imagine will be coming up? I can imagine that both the United Kingdom and the European Union will be focused on advancing shared interests in defence and security. We would very much welcome for there to be a joint statement on co-operation in that area.

I note that, overnight, the European Union has announced a very significant defence package, which is not open to the United Kingdom defence sector. That might change, were there to be a co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU. That is strong encouragement for that to happen. I think that there is goodwill on all sides to make progress in that area.

For the Scottish Government’s part—I think that you have heard me make this point before—we have, for the longest time, advanced the need for what I call a food, drink and agriculture agreement. The terminology is important, because people might understand what that is as opposed to a “sanitary and phytosanitary agreement”.

For those of us who have been speaking with our food and drink sector and our rural stakeholders, it seems that the general view is that it is very important that we should have such an agreement. We have been impressing that view on the UK Government and sharing it with European Union interlocutors.

There are other areas of common interest to the UK and the European Union: greater co-operation on energy and on law enforcement; addressing irregular migration; and perhaps having something like the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention for example. All those things might feature. Both sides have particular issues that might well be raised as part of the process. There is an expectation that the European Union is very keen to make progress on youth mobility, and we would share its interests in that. We will no doubt come back to that. There is also an expectation that fishing issues will be discussed, although there are no details about what that might involve. We very much hope that the UK Government will push for business mobility and mobility for touring artists.

We expect negotiations after the forthcoming summit to continue over the summer. We are not aware of discussions between the parties as yet on the timing of the next TCA Partnership Council or on the spring round of specialised committees. I think that we are at the cusp of making progress. We have been making our priorities clear, and no doubt we can go into that in detail.

In fairness to my opposite number in the UK Government, Nick Thomas-Symonds has been impressing on me and colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland that the UK Government wants to take the priorities of devolved Administrations seriously. We are taking that at face value, and we very much hope that progress can be made on those matters as well as on the other areas that will be discussed.

No, there is not a co-decision mechanism in the United Kingdom. Sadly, that is not how the devolution settlement works. That, of course, was the advantage of the European Union. As a member state of the EU, we were formally part of a co-decision process, which also involved directly elected parliamentarians. We do not have that. We have an assurance that the UK Government will listen to the priorities of the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive, and that that will inform the UK’s negotiating position, but there is no formal mechanism whatsoever for decisions to be made jointly.

I do not have numbers next to the points that were raised, but it is clear that an agriculture, food and drink agreement and an SPS agreement would have a significant impact across our economy and would be important for our rural sector and our exports. I happen to think that the UK Government views that as one of the major priorities, although it has never said it like that.

Therefore, we are in a similar position. We are not at the stage of not getting everything that we want. We are not even at the stage of knowing what everybody’s relative priorities are, because we are at the stage of seeking to ascertain what those priorities are. However, I have made it clear that an agriculture, food and drink agreement is very important. Everything else is significant.

I do not see any technical or political reason why all those things are not deliverable. I cannot speak to what the European Union’s position on such matters will be. I know that the EU is very keen on mobility and on young people from the EU and the UK being able to enjoy the benefits of living, working and studying in one another’s countries, and I happen to agree with that. However, it is too early for me to be able to read the runes for Mr Bibby on the relative positions of the UK Government. We have talked about how important all these things are.

It is clear that all issues will bring advantages and disadvantages for different sides in a negotiation, but there are some aspects of this process in relation to which I see no downside whatsoever. Let us take the creative Europe programme, for example. I cannot see any downside to the UK being part of that. Thirteen other states and territories outside the EU are part of creative Europe. In our creative sector, co-operation with other parts of Europe is extremely important. In the screen sector, which is an area that Mr Bibby and I share a commitment to, co-production—working with other commissioning broadcasters and film and TV companies—is important. Anyone you speak to in that world will say, “We absolutely need to be part of creative Europe.” I have not heard a single person, in any context—whether in Scotland or the UK—question that, so, with a bit of luck, some of these things need not be complicated at all.

Other areas are also important. I have not yet mentioned energy. Energy matters greatly because of the geostrategic situation that we find ourselves in. Parts of the European continent are dependent on gas, and countries such as Germany are moving as quickly as they can away from being dependent on gas to hydrogen. They cannot produce enough hydrogen. Who can produce hydrogen? Northern European countries, including Scotland, can. It is really important for the UK Government to understand that issues around energy matter to us as well. However, that is a more complicated issue.

I concede that some things are much easier to deliver than others. On matters on which there are technical questions, the process might take a bit longer. In principle, however, I think that everything that we have said should be a priority from our point of view should be eminently deliverable. I am not in a position to answer on the relative order that the UK Government or, indeed, EU colleagues would give to those matters, but I will be happy to come back later in the process to talk about that.

The logic of Mr Kerr’s position is irresistible in as much as what was right for Horizon is right for Erasmus+ and is right for creative Europe. Those are three programmes that proved successful while we were in the European Union, and they have proven successful for countries that are participants but that are no longer in the EU—such as in our case—or were not ever part of the EU.

Mr Kerr did not name which institution he was visiting that was singing the praises of increased research funding and co-operation and all that, but I am sure that its experience is one that we would, in years to come, hear about from participants in Erasmus+ if the UK were to rejoin it and it is what we would be hearing about from the creative sector if the UK were to rejoin creative Europe.

To answer Mr Kerr’s question about negotiations, there are no details about the wishes for any potential changes to the fishing regime on the part of either the UK Government or the European Union.

I remember the Scottish electorate being promised the closest possible thing to federalism. That is how these things work. The federal system that countries such as Germany and Austria have involves the Länder as part of the decision-making process, but that is not the case in the UK.

That is what I would wish. I would want to maintain the principle that we believe in access to public healthcare that does not involve paying for it.

Yet again—and for the record—I agree with Mr Kerr that the recognition of professional qualifications was a challenge while we were in the European Union and that it remains a challenge now that we are no longer in the European Union. Of course there is self-interest on the part of countries in and around the issue. I agree with Mr Kerr that that is not a reason not to try to make progress. If decisions were made in the past that did not progress recognition and were mistaken, that is no reason not to return to them.

However, we also need to be aware of the internal UK aspect. Because the UK has different legal jurisdictions, as Mr Kerr said, it is a case in point that we have different professional qualifications in the UK. That makes my point, which is that trade is a reserved matter. We are bound by the actions that the United Kingdom Government takes, including the passing of legislation on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, such as the Professional Qualifications Act 2022, which is a UK Parliament act.

Trade policy is reserved, but the 2022 act was passed without the legislative consent of the Scottish ministers. When Mr Kerr brings up examples of where progress has not been made with European Union institutions, I point out that there have been such difficulties in the United Kingdom. I underline that we should take the opportunity, given that we can do so at this moment, to make progress on all such things. If there is cross-party agreement, I very much welcome it.

I know that Scottish professional bodies are closely involved in all of this. The committee has heard from the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, and others are also involved. To the same end, Scottish Government officials are engaging regularly with counterparts in the Department for Business and Trade.

No—I am not. I do not accept the characterisation that Mr Kerr gave. I stress again that there have been efforts to find workarounds for the foolhardy UK position of leaving Erasmus+, following the previous UK Conservative Government’s pledge that we would remain part of it. Since then, the Scottish education exchange programme has been established to support Scottish education institutions to develop stronger international partnerships with other institutions following the loss of Erasmus+. We continue to seek out the best means to create opportunities for Scottish learners to enjoy international opportunities.

We have looked very closely at the Taith scheme, which Mr Kerr drew attention to. It is absolutely clear to us that there is no comparison to Erasmus+. If one looks at the amount of money spent and the impact when compared with Erasmus+ previously, there is no substitute for Erasmus+.

If colleagues wish me to, I can write in greater detail so that members can see the clear facts about the number of students who have been involved, the number of institutions that have been involved, the funding that has been delivered or not delivered by the Turing scheme and how the Taith scheme compares with all of that.

It is clear that the best solution for us in Scotland is not to replicate something that works; it is to be part of the thing that works, which is Erasmus+. The good news for Mr Kerr is that that is on the table. The European Union has said that it is open to the United Kingdom being a part of that and is keen for that. In the same way as Mr Kerr rallied to support the United Kingdom’s call to rejoin the horizon programme, I call on him and everybody else to realise that, although I have no doubt that people with the best of intentions have tried to ensure that the Turing scheme and the Taith scheme make up for the disadvantage of leaving Erasmus+, they do not.

That is why I will not be diverted from the Scottish Government’s position, which is to impress on the UK Government why it is so important to take the opportunity—the offer—of rejoining Erasmus+. The plus is there for a reason. The scheme involves much more than just the ability of students to study in different countries; it has an impact on our wider education system and much more besides. I would wish young people in Scotland and our education institutions—our universities, colleges and schools—to be a part of all of that. I am happy to write to the committee if you think that that would be useful, convener.