Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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+.