Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have not seen any correspondence that would support what Mr Bibby is saying. Obviously, such schemes come with a cost implication—of course they do. However, I think that we have to take a step back and look objectively at the strengths and weaknesses of all the schemes that are out there. It is true that we should consider the cost implications of those things.

There is, however, also an intangible benefit that you cannot assess on the basis of cost, which is of value to a generation of young people—both Scottish and wider UK students, as well as European Union students who wish to come here—who have been denied the opportunity of a year abroad or of furthering their studies in other countries. That is at a time when—we have talked about this in passing—we are looking at the situation in Ukraine with the gravest of concern. The Europe in which we all grew up, with certainties around peace and security, is unfortunately over. That is why schemes such as Erasmus+, which bring people together and help to grow understanding and trust between emerging generations of our younger society, are so important. It is another reason why we should be part of a scheme whose scale means that it does much more than Turing or Taith could ever do.

Please do.

I fear that I will not be able to do Mr Harvie’s question justice in the less than one minute that I have left in this evidence session, but I assure him that I and my colleagues are very seized of the matter. The UK Government obviously has an interest in reaching energy agreements about trading, carbon capture and storage, interconnectivity and regulatory alignment to ensure that the energy sector can operate as well as possible, and we are very supportive of that.

I think that Mr Harvie knows this, but one of the things that I spend a lot of my time doing when I meet continental European colleagues—primarily northern European colleagues—is drawing attention to the opportunities that we have as northern European renewable energy-rich countries. Scotland, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark and others are all likely to be energy exporting countries, and we work as closely as possible to make the case to other European countries that we need to work together to deal with regulatory issues, trade-related issues and interconnectivity-related issues.

I am trying to impress on my UK Government colleagues that, when they talk with EU member states and European Union institutions about all of this, they must remember the priorities that Scotland has as a country that will be able to produce green hydrogen, without nuclear being part of our energy set-up, and then export that hydrogen through the European Union’s hydrogen backbone system, which links Ireland and Scotland to the European Union via Scotland. We have to understand—this has not been widely reflected in the Scottish media or in debates in the chamber, as far as I have been able to ascertain—that we are in a really strong position if we can have regulatory alignment and interconnectivity and if we realise that Europe’s moving from gas dependency to hydrogen use is a massive opportunity for us as well as for continental Europe.

Convener, we are in a position to share with you the energy paper that has been developed, which covers a lot of the points that Mr Harvie has raised. We would be happy to forward that to the committee and to respond to any follow-up questions that there might be.

I think that that answers the point about which scheme is best and which approach is best. The Scottish Government’s position is that rejoining Erasmus+ is where we would wish to be. Thank you.

You raise a very good point. We have been talking a lot about student numbers, the student experience, the opportunity to study in other countries and the advantages of doing so. In addition, the fact is that a more significant proportion of students from a deprived background in Scotland were able to take part in such programmes than was the case elsewhere. However, there is also a direct and indirect impact on those who teach in our educational institutions. As we know, over the decades, we have benefited from a significant number of our university and college lecturing staff coming from European Union countries.

We have witnessed a significant decline in the numbers of European Union students coming here, and one of my fears is that we will see the same impact on our teaching staff from European Union countries. That should give us all cause for concern. We want the best teaching staff, from everywhere in the world, to come to work in Scotland. Anything that would lead to a decline in the number of academics from European Union countries working here would be a concern for us, and we have observed observe the beginnings of a trend in that respect.

This meeting is taking place at a moment in time when the opportunity for us to rejoin Erasmus+ is on the table. That is the context for the evidence session and for the interministerial discussions that I have been having with Nick Thomas-Symonds. We can go over the old ground of the interventions that the Scottish Government has made relative to schemes elsewhere, but I would have hoped that a reasonable and rational understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the schemes that are available would make it patently obvious that there is no substitute for being part of Erasmus+. European Union interlocutors view that—this is an important point—in exactly the same way as horizon Europe and creative Europe are viewed by the European Union, which is that they are not seen as cherry-picking. These are schemes that are on the table if the United Kingdom wants to play a part. That is why I appeal to colleagues in other political parties. There are different views in the UK Government, and I think that it is true to say that those who have a particular educational and cultural perspective in the UK Government are very keen for the UK to rejoin Erasmus+. I am not sure that that is necessarily the case in the Treasury. That is why I appeal to colleagues who have a voice to use it to make the case for why Erasmus+ is something that we should go back into.

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.

We have done something different from Wales, and I can go through those things. However, but as part of the process we have been looking at Turing and Taith and at Erasmus+ and saying there is no substitute. That is underlined by the fact that the Welsh Government is saying to the UK Government that it wishes the UK to look at going back into the Erasmus+ programme. That is my point—there is no substitute for Erasmus+. Why do not we all agree—I hope that we do—that Erasmus+ is the best show in town? Rather than going off and trying to replicate something that cannot deliver in the same way as Erasmus+ delivers, let us focus our attention on getting back into Erasmus+. Let us tell the UK Government that we care about it and think that it is important, and, as part of a wider mobility approach, let us tell European Union colleagues that we are in favour of Erasmus+ and of young people having that mobility between the United Kingdom and the European Union. That would seem to me to be a fair deal for everybody.

I would have to write to Mr Bibby about what will happen post this round of negotiations. I am working on the basis that we can persuade our colleagues to make progress, which will impact very much on how things go forward afterwards. If we know that Erasmus+ is going ahead, that will have a significant impact on the work that we currently undertake.