Seòmar agus comataidhean

Convener, I am trying to make the point that, as I have said to the committee, we are about to learn a lot more about the UK Government’s position.

If you are asking me to talk in concrete terms about a UK Government scheme that may change on the basis of the proposals that are about to be set out, I would prefer to reserve my position until I have looked at the proposals for an enhanced scheme relative to that which is currently in place.

The fact that the UK left Erasmus+ has been massively detrimental to young people. We remember, of course, that the UK Prime Minister at the time, Boris Johnson, gave an assurance to the House of Commons that that would not be the case. He said that the UK would remain in the Erasmus+ scheme and lauded what it had delivered for young people. I agree with him on that. I will say more about that once I have spoken about culture. The UK’s withdrawal from Erasmus+ did not need to happen. It was unnecessary and was a form of self-harm from the point of view of younger people’s life chances.

Similarly, the UK did not need to leave the creative Europe programme. Members of Scotland’s creative community are absolutely clear about their desire for Scotland and the UK to be part of that programme. They look at other third countries that are members of it and see how those countries benefit from being part of it, and they do not understand why the UK is not.

I would strongly encourage the UK Government to look at both those areas, in the same way that the previous UK Government did in relation to the horizon programme, which is a similar programme for university and wider research. It was acknowledged that it was a big mistake to leave that programme. The university sector was keen to rejoin it, and the most recent UK Conservative Government realised that the UK could again play a part in it.

I see Erasmus+ and creative Europe in exactly the same way. There is a willingness among European Union countries and institutions for the UK to rejoin those schemes. I very much hope that that will be the case because, for young people and people in our creative sector, that would go a long way to ending the self-harm that we have had to endure since Brexit. On a more positive note, it would enable us to mend and rebuild educational opportunities for young people to study and learn, and it would facilitate international co-operation for our creative sector.

Of course.

That, too.

Welcome back to the committee, Mr Harvie. It is nice to see you in your place. I will allow my civil service colleagues to collect any thoughts or reflections that they may have, because, as committee members will appreciate, most of the work that is done in preparation for and as part of such processes is driven at a working level by officials speaking to one another regularly. However, I will be happy to talk about my experience in dealing with UK Government colleagues and European interlocutors as part of the process.

The term “reset” is not liked in Brussels, but I think that we all understand what is meant by it, which is that intergovernmental relations between the UK and the EU, which were previously more fraught, should be less fraught and more positively aligned. Incidentally, the same approach should be taken between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations in the UK, because those relations had been very bad under the previous UK Government.

When I have met colleagues in Brussels, they have reported that the still relatively new UK Government is definitely taking a different approach in its discussions with the EU. I would attest to the fact that, in the meetings that I have had, it is constantly stressed that we are in different territory and that the UK Government wants to listen. In that respect, it is a case of “So far, so good”.

I do not think that Mr Harvie was on the committee when I shared the insight of people in Brussels, who described the UK Government’s position by referring to the Spice Girls. I am judging from Mr Harvie’s face that he has not heard this before. EU colleagues said that they were not sure what the UK Government really wanted. They were saying, “Tell us what you want, what you really, really want.” That was the chat among everyone at events. They said that it was great that UK Government ministers were having conversations in which they said that the UK Government wanted to get on positively and that it was exploring various areas in which discussions could be held and agreement could be reached, but that there was a lack of clarity about what the UK Government actually wanted.

In fairness, when a new Government comes in, it has to understand where the previous Government got to and where the interlocutors in Brussels, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast are in relation to all that and to work out what the relative priorities are. With regard to the European Union, we have had European Parliament elections, a new Commission and new commissioners taking up their responsibilities, and I think that everyone has chosen to understand that backdrop as the reason why no substantive progress has yet been made on all those things. We have wished that process a fair wind.

I would characterise the conversations that I have had as follows. Colleagues have clearly and repeatedly expressed their views in similar terms. I met my opposite number, Lisa Nandy, who is the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, yesterday, and she started the conversation by saying, “The UK Government is very keen to work with the Scottish Government. Let’s make sure that we can identify ... ”, and so on. That is great, but we are getting to the stage where we need to move beyond terms such as “reset” and atmospherics. What is the UK Government actually going to seek to agree and when? At the same time, we must also bear in mind that a massive black swan has crossed in front of everybody’s considerations in relation to defence and security.

Perhaps that will help everyone to understand—if they did not already realise it—why such areas of potential agreement really matter. It matters that one has good will. There will be different interests in those discussions, and I must hope—it has been reported back to us that this is the case—that the UK Government has taken our positions back. I have said this to the committee before, but I will do so again so that it is on the record. Improving professional mobility; securing EU-UK co-operation and the mutual recognition of professional qualifications; rejoining Erasmus+ and improving youth mobility; removing obstacles for touring artists; and improving migration arrangements to meet Scottish needs. Those things, which I listed in no particular order, are all things that we have asked the UK Government to take seriously.

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 were talking about fishing and seafood a moment ago, so I will use that sector as an example. The export of Scottish seafood to markets such as France or Spain is extremely important, and time is of the essence in that regard, as seafood needs to be very fresh and exports should happen very quickly. If the UK Government were to introduce border controls that led to any delay in exporting, it would cause massive problems in that sector. That is why I have said that it is in the interests of Scotland, the rest of the UK and the European Union to have an agriculture, food and drink agreement—an SPS agreement—that will obviate the necessity for high-handed border controls, which is what will come in unless there is a deal.

It would be good for us not to get ahead of ourselves but to understand that this is perhaps a moment in time when there is an opportunity to reach a good agreement. It does not compare with being part of the common market, with being part of the single market, or being a member state of the European Union, but out of the bad situation that we have found ourselves in, which has had a negative impact on the fishing sector in Scotland, we could perhaps, as part of the negotiations, reach an agreement that will insure the industry against a worsening of its situation because of border controls that are yet to be introduced.

I have no doubt that parts of the service sector have been trading very well. We should encourage that, and that is exactly what the Scottish Government and its agencies do.

It is also fair to say that there are impediments and that we should take the opportunity of reducing them, if we can. I hope that Mr Kerr agrees that there is no artificial ceiling to our ambition in supporting the Scottish service sector. In relation to professional recognition of qualifications or the provision of legal services, there are undoubtedly constraints and downsides, which have been evidenced to the committee.

Yes, there is a difference between trade in services and trade in goods with the European Union—that is a statement of fact. It is also a statement of fact that there are impediments. I would not want to downplay those areas and say that they are insignificant and do not matter because some parts of the sector are doing okay. I encourage our UK Government colleagues to work out ways in which we can ensure that, where there are constraints and impediments in the service sector that have technical solutions, the UK and the EU can reach agreement on those solutions.

Yes, I absolutely believe that it can be done, because when we deal with the facts—as opposed to the rhetoric that we have heard from some quarters this morning—it is obvious that there is no comparison between the UK’s Turing and Taith schemes and Erasmus+. Between 2014 and 2020, Scottish universities were awarded on average €12.1 million per year through Erasmus+. Scottish universities are currently awarded less than half that value—just over £5 million—through the Turing scheme, and they are also becoming less competitive at securing funding for mobility.

If we are to deal with the scale of the challenge, I think that it is important that we acknowledge the facts. Data from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service shows that, between 2016 and 2024, there was an 81 per cent decrease in the number of acceptances by EU-domiciled students of places at Scottish universities. The largest decrease in EU acceptances came in 2021, which coincided with a change in student support for EU students. We expect the 2023-24 figures to be published during this committee session, and we expect a further decline in the number of EU students.

I make a final point for the record, so that everybody has the facts at their disposal. The loss of Erasmus+ funding is greater than just the impact on universities. For example, in the final year of Scotland’s last Erasmus+ cycle, £26.4 million was awarded across Scotland’s education sector. In the current year of the Turing scheme, Scottish institutions have been awarded £6.9 million. It should be obvious to us all that the Turing scheme and the Taith scheme are not a match for being part of the Erasmus+ programme.

The good news—in the context of this evidence session, at this time, given the early discussions that are about to take place on a more formal basis—is that being part of Erasmus+ is on the table and on offer from the European Union. If we were to listen to our institutions—our universities and those in the wider education sector—they would tell us, as they have told you, how much they would wish to be part of the Erasmus+ programme. That is why the Scottish Government is making that point to the UK Government.