Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is very much a moving target. With certain things, it would make sense for the UK to align itself with European standards. A current example of that would be energy, given Scotland’s significant potential in renewable energy and exporting it either as electricity or as hydrogen-related products such as ammonia or hydrogen itself. Those things require regulatory agreement with the European Union, and that currently does not exist.

As a result, we in the Scottish Government need to impress on UK Government colleagues in the current and probably outgoing Government—and I hope that those in a likely incoming UK Government are listening to this—that we require regulatory agreement and alignment on this issue, so that we can reach our full potential. We are not in the room, so we are having to ask others to act on our behalf, which they might or might not do. They might have other things that are a higher priority. However, I am doing everything that I can to communicate to decision makers in London, Brussels and other EU national capitals, particularly those such as Berlin with an interest in the likes of energy importation, that, with goodwill, we could be in a win-win situation.

If anything, this issue underlines why not being in the room is a disadvantage. If we are to use the TCA mechanism—which we will, because it is the only formal structure that we have—all I will get is an occasional meeting with a junior minister in the Foreign Office, as has been the case up until now; they will sit and listen; they will say that they are hearing what we are saying; and then they might or might not act. We are able to observe what happens—as I have, having sat in on meetings with Maroš Šefcovic and the previous UK Foreign Secretary, and having seen certain issues that we had impressed on the UK Government as important being raised, while other issues were not.

We are going through a number of stages here. We might be listened to, we might be heard and then things might or might not be acted on. We are beholden to others acting on our behalf, and their having good will and an understanding that what we have raised might be a good thing. We might come on to this later in the evidence session, but I can highlight the recent example of a proposal with regard to the reintroduction of free movement for younger people, which would be a good thing—

I do understand the point that you are making.

There are a few points to make about the specialised committees. First, they are all relatively new, but some were set up later than others. I am not in a position to talk about issues with the frequency of the meetings—my officials might want to say whether they have a particular view on whether that has been problematic. To be honest, I think that the challenge was to get the specialised committees established in the first place. Now that they have been established, they have to find a rhythm to what they do. I am not in favour of having meetings for the sake of having meetings. I generally believe that issues that need to be discussed should be raised when they need to be.

There might be an issue around how often the specialised committees meet and whether they meet often enough—I think that that is the nub of your question. I am not sure that we are going to be able to answer that yet—I see that Nick Leake would like to comment, and I will let him in in a second. I had a concern around the fact that, for quite some time, a significant number of the specialised committees had not met at all. It seemed to me that, if it was thought that it was important to establish those specialised committees, it was pretty important that they should at least have an initial meeting and then discuss what the rhythm of their meetings should be in future.

Now that the committees have largely been established, we are in the next stage of working out whether they are meeting as often as they should. It is definitely the right question, but I do not have an answer to that in the round, Ms Gallacher. However, I am as keen as you are to know whether that is indeed the case. I think that that will become more apparent now that the committees have initially met. Nick, do you have some additional information on that?

We are all involved in one way or another. As Mr Ruskell knows, in the Government, there is no shortage of meetings or dashboards around where are we with things.

In relation to the United Nations specifically, Scottish Government ministers have taken part in UN events and will continue to do so. We are part of multilateral efforts to ensure that we are upholding the likes of the sustainable development goals, for which there is responsibility across Government. That is the point that I am trying to make—the responsibility is not owned by just one part of Government, such as the department of external affairs; it is reflected across Government.

I will perhaps write to Mr Ruskell through the convener to give a fuller answer because he is quite right to ask for more detail, and I am happy to provide it.

I thank Mr Stewart for what I think is a very encouraging question.

On international development, I think that I am right in saying that we are coming up to an important anniversary with regard to Scotland’s international development work, which goes back to the beginnings of devolution and which has—I think that I am right in saying it—cross-party support. It is, by international development standards, not huge, but it is significant in reflecting the values that we all share, and it is also focused very much on particular countries with which we have historic connections.

The work in those areas largely relates to devolved responsibilities. For example, as far as health and education are concerned, we are doing quite a lot of work on supporting the role of women and have supported a number of projects in that specific sphere. That might be what Mr Stewart is alluding to when he asks about extending development goals—that is, the idea of having a feminist foreign policy, as it has been described. That is being pursued by a number of countries, and Scotland has been working with others to identify how can we do it.

As I said in my opening remarks, we have just published a very significant document on Scotland’s international development. I think that it contains a lot of evidence that shows the good work that has been undertaken. Given that part of the committee’s consideration today relates to evaluation, I am very keen to know whether, when the deputy convener and other colleagues look at the likes of that report, they are satisfied not only that it provides the required information on what has been delivered, but on the reporting mechanism itself. Is all this happening in a way that you think is optimal for your job? After all, you are here to ensure that the Scottish Government, its agencies, its policies and so on are delivering optimally, so I am keen to know whether you feel that you are being well served. I want to be an ally of the committee and ensure that we are providing things in a format that will be of best use to you.

We have just had that report on international development, and we are going to have an updated report on the international network. Similarly, will that report capture what you require? We will, no doubt, learn whether that is the case when you conclude your deliberations, but we are providing very significant reports on the policy and how it is being conducted.

Where, as Mr Stewart alluded to, goals have been extended, the question is this: has that work been properly reflected and reported on, too? I would be keen to hear about that from the committee. I feel that it has been, but is there more that we can do? If so, I am very keen that we do it.

I agree. Only last week, I met Scotland’s leading international development organisations to hear how, from their point of view, the Scottish Government’s policy and funding are working, what they have been working on, what they intend to work on in future and how they would like things to develop. I should say that we were also joined by colleagues from our partner countries, so we are talking about civil society not just in Scotland but in the countries where we operate.

It is hugely important that this is a two-way process. After all, this is not just about how Scotland can help our partner nations such as Malawi, Rwanda and Zaire; it is about what we can learn from those countries, too, and I am very open to such an approach. That meeting happened only last week, and it is something that we will continue to do.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee today and to exchange views on the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement, which has been an important focus of Scottish Government work since the agreement came into force on 1 May 2021.

I very much welcome the committee undertaking such a wide-ranging inquiry into the treaty’s implementation and hearing evidence from a range of witnesses. 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.

A large part of our work in recent months has been to interact with as many stakeholders as possible, including the UK domestic advisory group and the Scottish advisory forum on Europe. We are keen to ensure that we hear what they say and gather evidence from their expertise.

It is particularly timely for the committee to be carrying out this work at present, because we expect the review that is provided for in the agreement to take place in 2025-26, although it is not yet clear whether that will lead to consideration of substantive changes. The elections this year, in both the European Union and the UK, might also lead to new scenarios and to opportunities for improvement.

I turn first to the big picture. The Government strongly affirms that Scotland shares the EU’s vision of peace and co-operation; the founding principles of the European project are universal and are rooted in a belief in human dignity and freedom, expressed through democracy. We also share Europe’s global challenges and are determined to work together on shared solutions. The war in Ukraine, the conflict in Gaza and the continuing threat of climate change make the scale of the global challenges very clear.

Scotland voted clearly to remain in the EU, with majorities for remain in every local authority area in the country. Despite that clear democratic expression, the UK Government’s hard Brexit has been imposed on us, leading to many of the difficulties that your inquiry has already brought to light.

It is welcome that we have seen a modest improvement in the EU-UK relationship in recent months. It is overwhelmingly in Scotland’s interest for there to be a much more positive and mutually beneficial relationship between the EU and UK, and we will do our part to help to create that where we can.

As members know, the Scottish Government is committed to maintaining alignment with the EU, where such alignment is possible and will be meaningful in protecting and advancing the high standards that we share.

We continue to be a proactive and constructive participant in EU matters by engaging closely with TCA fora and by wider engagement with EU institutions and member states, including our active network of international offices and our support for inward visits here at home. For example, I had the pleasure in April of welcoming the EU ambassador for a busy programme of engagement with Scottish stakeholders. The Scottish Government is thereby doing everything that it can to mitigate the damage of a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for, minimise divergence with the EU and ease Scotland’s eventual return.

I turn to the priorities that the Scottish Government has identified in its work around the TCA, after which I hope that we can discuss our respective approaches to the challenges that we see.

I will focus for a moment on the higher education sector, which is so crucial to Scotland’s economy, society and reputation. Scotland benefited disproportionately from the horizon Europe and Erasmus+ programmes. We are pleased that, in January this year, the UK finally associated to the horizon Europe programme. Collaborating internationally is vital for our education and research institutions, and the Scottish Government has continually urged the UK Government to find a pathway back to horizon. We now need to ensure that we maximise Scottish participation in the programme, and I am pleased that work on that has already begun.

One of the fundamental rights in the EU—that of free movement—offered unique opportunities to our young people while we were in the EU. The Erasmus+ programme was a key element of that, and we have been strongly urging the UK Government to re-associate to the programme. We welcomed the recent proposal of the European Commission to open negotiations with the UK Government on youth mobility. I can only hope that that issue will receive fresh consideration after the UK election.

The committee has already heard about many other issues, which the Scottish Government also sees as important priorities and which include a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and other trade easements, enhanced mobility arrangements for services and creative professionals, and electricity trading and wider energy co-operation, through which Scotland’s hydrogen sector has so much to offer.

There is no doubt that we have the technical knowledge to address all those issues. What we need is a change in mindset and to move to a place of trust where we can do business together.

I look forward to discussing with the committee those issues and other matters that members might wish to raise.

I and colleagues are always open to suggestions. There is an on-going dialogue with Scotland’s business organisations, which constantly feed back their experience about what is or is not working well for them. If there are any gaps in that provision, I am certain that people would be keen to hear what they are.

There is dialogue and regular discussion about all those things and I very much hope that suggestions are acted on—none have been brought to my attention that have not been. Mr Bibby or the committee might have examples of areas where there is room to improve. That is a good example of the purpose that inquiries such as this one serve in trying to make a difference where we can, notwithstanding that I hope that there is an appreciation that we are operating in a hard Brexit environment, which the Conservative Party and the Labour Party support.

Regular dialogue takes place between Scottish Government officials and their UK Government counterparts. In general, that does not involve ministers from meeting to meeting. Those are technical discussions that take place across a range of specialist subject areas. However, I found that there was an improvement in the pre-TCA meeting dialogue between me and Leo Docherty, when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Europe. I had two meetings with him in relation to technical discussions on seed potatoes and other issues that the committee will be well aware of. There was definitely a marked improvement in how those discussions went. That reflected the fact that, in the discussions between officials, the message had been heard.

There are a number of subject areas in which there are technical areas—on seed potatoes, bivalve molluscs and so on—where, with good will, one might be able to make progress. In those areas, discussions have been held between officials, and then between me and my ministerial opposite numbers. There were also discussions on cultural performers and the restrictions that they are facing with cabotage and so on that have made things difficult for touring professionals.

The dialogue happens. In some respects, the situation is better than before. There have been more meetings than there were previously, and I know that some of the issues have been raised, but that is not the same thing as actually being able to deliver in relation to them. In that regard, we discuss where there are shortcomings. We have discussed the issues on seed potatoes, bivalve molluscs and touring professionals, which are three high-priority areas for us to try and get some progress on. UK Government ministers have said that they have heard our concerns and will raise them. We are allowed to view those discussions with the European Union, but we are not allowed to take part in them ourselves.

To date, on those specific examples, we have not yet got the outcomes that we are looking for. There is a system that brings our officials together and now brings ministers together, but we really need to look at outcomes and not just processes. The processes are better than they were. That is definitely the case, although there is still significant room for improvement. However, with regard to outcomes, there is still some way to go.

Nick Leake, would you like to add something?