Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Thank you very much, convener, and good morning, colleagues. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to the committee on the trade and co-operation agreement and to focus on trade in services and mobility. I welcome the committee’s inquiry. Your previous report on trade and goods made a strong contribution to the debate on the impact of Brexit.

The Scottish Government’s view is well known. The provisions that were made under the TCA represent a huge step backwards when compared with the benefits of European Union membership.

The changed international and UK economic situation demands an urgent change of course from the UK Government. It is becoming clearer by the day that being outside the European Union in the more volatile world leaves the UK and Scotland in an exposed and vulnerable position. This week, we have seen further evidence of the precarious position of the UK economy. In those circumstances, continuing the disastrous UK self-imposed exclusion from the European single market and customs union makes zero sense. There are clear moves towards greater European Union economic autonomy. That means, amid a possible global trade war, that the UK runs the risk of being marooned with no safe harbour. That cannot be in the interests of Scotland.

Within the parameters of the TCA, some limited improvements are still possible. In relation to trade in services, greater worker mobility and mutual recognition of professional qualifications in key sectors would help. The loss of mobility has had a particular impact on touring artists. Rejoining the Erasmus+ programme would make it easier for our young people and students to study in the European Union and enhance their skills and qualifications.

The Scottish Government will continue to press for improvements to arrangements for co-operation with the European Union. To be clear, that means provisions that are much deeper and wider reaching.

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. In particular, it is critical that we come to a comprehensive and generous mobility agreement as swiftly as possible, and seek to rejoin key European programmes in order to redress harms and restore to our businesses and individuals at least some of what they have lost through Brexit.

To that effect, my ministerial colleagues and I will continue to work with key partners in Scotland on the proposed efforts to improve UK-EU relations. I expect to have a further meeting of the four nations interministerial group on UK-EU relations to press for Scotland’s interests and I have offered to host that in-person meeting in Scotland. I have also recently travelled to Brussels to speak with key European Union partners as the EU continues to embed its new five-year cycle.

I remain committed to working closely with our fellow Europeans for the good of Scotland and for the rest of the UK and the European Union. To that end, I look forward to discussing these issues with you and other matters members might wish to raise.

Thank you very much.

First, I would to say to Mr Kerr that I am keen not to re-write history and misrepresent the facts around fishing. The situation is not as Mr Kerr has presented it. Brexit left the Scottish fishing industry with access to fewer of the important fish stocks than it had under the common fisheries policy; the industry group Salmon Scotland reported that Brexit cost Scotland around £75 million in 2023 in lost salmon exports to the European Union; and leaving the European Union has ended freedom of movement, contributing to an estimated 20 per cent to 25 per cent of vacancies being unfilled throughout the seafood industry.

To quote the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation:

“The fishing industry in Scotland paid a heavy price for the Brexit deal in the first place.”

I could go on to say that the deal was desperately poor—

I have already answered that question and said that we have acted.

Convener, with your permission, can I help with Mr Kerr’s lack of knowledge in this area? I draw his attention to the fact that the Welsh Labour Government has said publicly that it would welcome the United Kingdom Government entering into discussions with the European Union about rejoining Erasmus+.

This is my initial update for the committee. The engagement and the tone of the engagement have been good. What is more difficult to understand is the relative priorities of the UK Government. That was Mr Bibby’s question, and it was a good question but we do not know the answer to it.

There has been some effort to work out what the European Union’s emerging position is going to be, what the UK’s emerging position is going to be and where there might be trade-offs. Going back to Mr Harvie’s questions about process and where we fit in, the situation facing us is uncertain and, effectively, ad hoc. At least we are invited to attend meetings and are told that we are being listened to. What is not yet apparent is the extent to which negotiations will occur on our behalf.

It is true to say that there was a much higher preponderance of Scottish institutions and Scottish students taking up places in Erasmus+. Therefore, being part of Erasmus+ might be viewed by others as being less of a priority for them than it is for us. We are trying to impress on the UK Government that it is not just a financial decision; it is also about goodwill. It is not just about Scottish students being able to study elsewhere in Europe, but about European Union students being able to study here. We have seen an 81 per cent drop—we have caught up with those numbers, but only in part, and the students concerned are from countries and parts of the world that bring challenges. For example, the biggest single international cohort of students in Edinburgh now comes from the People’s Republic of China. We should be looking closely at how we can support our universities. The international student cohort is very important for them, and being part of Erasmus+ would help with that.

I am very sympathetic to the point that Mr Harvie makes. It is a matter of basic principle. We pay for the health system through our taxes and I believe that we have an intergenerational responsibility. I would wish that young Scots who are able to live and work and are using a youth mobility scheme in the rest of Europe would not be disadvantaged and that what is true for them would, by necessity, also be true for Europeans.

Mr Kerr has invited me to give a yes or no answer, but I think that it would be more sensible for me to understand what the different relative positions would be. If that were the position of the UK Government, what would the position of the European Union institutions be in relation to that? As soon as I have greater clarification on that, I will be happy to come back to you.