Seòmar agus comataidhean

I remember the Scottish electorate being promised the closest possible thing to federalism. That is how these things work. The federal system that countries such as Germany and Austria have involves the Länder as part of the decision-making process, but that is not the case in the UK.

No—I am not. I do not accept the characterisation that Mr Kerr gave. I stress again that there have been efforts to find workarounds for the foolhardy UK position of leaving Erasmus+, following the previous UK Conservative Government’s pledge that we would remain part of it. Since then, the Scottish education exchange programme has been established to support Scottish education institutions to develop stronger international partnerships with other institutions following the loss of Erasmus+. We continue to seek out the best means to create opportunities for Scottish learners to enjoy international opportunities.

We have looked very closely at the Taith scheme, which Mr Kerr drew attention to. It is absolutely clear to us that there is no comparison to Erasmus+. If one looks at the amount of money spent and the impact when compared with Erasmus+ previously, there is no substitute for Erasmus+.

If colleagues wish me to, I can write in greater detail so that members can see the clear facts about the number of students who have been involved, the number of institutions that have been involved, the funding that has been delivered or not delivered by the Turing scheme and how the Taith scheme compares with all of that.

It is clear that the best solution for us in Scotland is not to replicate something that works; it is to be part of the thing that works, which is Erasmus+. The good news for Mr Kerr is that that is on the table. The European Union has said that it is open to the United Kingdom being a part of that and is keen for that. In the same way as Mr Kerr rallied to support the United Kingdom’s call to rejoin the horizon programme, I call on him and everybody else to realise that, although I have no doubt that people with the best of intentions have tried to ensure that the Turing scheme and the Taith scheme make up for the disadvantage of leaving Erasmus+, they do not.

That is why I will not be diverted from the Scottish Government’s position, which is to impress on the UK Government why it is so important to take the opportunity—the offer—of rejoining Erasmus+. The plus is there for a reason. The scheme involves much more than just the ability of students to study in different countries; it has an impact on our wider education system and much more besides. I would wish young people in Scotland and our education institutions—our universities, colleges and schools—to be a part of all of that. I am happy to write to the committee if you think that that would be useful, convener.

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.

That is what I would wish. I would want to maintain the principle that we believe in access to public healthcare that does not involve paying for it.

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.