Seòmar agus comataidhean

This morning, we have heard that sales from Northern Ireland to Great Britain are up, and—I think that Mr Kelly said this—that the Northern Irish economy is 6 per cent larger in comparison with 1 per cent larger for the UK as a whole over recent years. We have heard about the benefits of unique dual market access, but we have also heard that that is not a panacea and that there are additional costs. There are also concerns about problems facing the Scottish economy and the wider GB economy.

We have been looking at a number of issues with regard to potential changes in relation to closer alignment, veterinary agreements and mutual recognition of professional standards. We just heard about the example of veterinary medicines, on which an agreement needs to be negotiated at UK-EU level.

On the issue of reviewing the TCA and the potential for closer alignment, I appreciate that, in Northern Ireland, there are always political views on these matters one way or the other. Nevertheless, are there any measures on which GB is looking to negotiate a trade and co-operation agreement or closer alignment with the EU that would be met with resistance from businesses or the economy in Northern Ireland because they would potentially dilute those unique benefits from the dual market access that Northern Ireland currently has?

Thank you. That is really helpful. Do any other witnesses have thoughts on that?

Good morning. We have discussed extensively how difficult the situation is, its impact, the need for change and how difficult negotiations can be. We have heard support both today and previously for a veterinary agreement being sought as soon as possible, as a matter of urgency. That makes a lot of sense, but we have also heard from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation that it could not support a veterinary agreement because the TCA is so harmful to the UK’s fishing rights. How can the committee balance those different views? Are these just unavoidable trade-offs?

I do not know whether Scott Walker or Fiona Burnett have anything to add.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for your testimony. We have heard loud and clear that the situation is costing you money and time. I have heard many businesses say that time is also money, so there is a double hit there.

I want to pick up on what Gary Stephenson said earlier—that the best thing that could happen would be mutual recognition and a veterinary agreement. We have heard testimony from Quality Meat Scotland about the fact that 15 per cent of shipments to the EU have to be checked, compared with 2 per cent of shipments to the EU from New Zealand, for example. I am interested in getting wider thoughts on whether agreement on that would be the best thing that could happen.

In addition, is there a trade-off between the easier exports and imports that mutual recognition and a veterinary agreement would bring and the costs that would be associated with greater alignment? Will you tell me a bit more about that, and about the effect on the ability to diverge?

Good morning to the panel and thank you for your report. I particularly note what you said about the contrast and the key differences between the Conservative Government’s approach and that of a potential future Labour Government to veterinary standards, mutual recognition of conformity assessments, professional qualifications, more flexible labour, mobility arrangements for short-term trips and UK association with EU programmes. I also note what you said in your report and again this morning about the significant challenges in making changes and the potential political costs. As a starting point, to what extent are those differences and that contrast understood in European capitals?

You have made the point that the EU would have to trust that future UK Governments, which could be far more Eurosceptic, will uphold such agreements. What can be done to address those concerns?

Thanks very much for that answer.

As was mentioned earlier, it is a big year for politics and elections, with a UK general election and European elections. The election in the United States has been referenced as a potential external factor that might drive changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU. We have heard about foreign security agreements and a desire from the EU to work on that as well. Do you have any thoughts on factors relating to the US election and how that could impact on foreign security issues and anything else, for that matter?

Good morning to the committee and to the minister. I will speak to my amendments 40, 41, 43, 44 and 47 to 49 in this group.

We have already heard how important Scotland’s tourism industry is to our country, and we all agree on that. I am sure that we all agree, too, on the importance of Scotland’s cultural scene, which is one of the greatest assets that our country has. It enriches the lives of people here, it sells brand Scotland overseas and it is one of the main reasons for people choosing to visit Scotland. As the minister said earlier, many people come here to visit our castles and other sites of historical significance. Other visitors travel here to see sights that they have seen on film and television or to experience, for example, concerts in Glasgow or the festival in Edinburgh. As the minister mentioned, we also have free entry to museums and galleries. We should maintain that approach. We should remember, too, that many international tourists will also visit those museums and galleries.

We are a world leader on cultural offerings, but we cannot take that for granted. As someone put it to me recently, Scotland was once the world leader when it came to shipbuilding. Just because something was once the case does not mean that it will always be so. As Mark Griffin alluded to earlier, culture and the arts require significant public subsidy from not only Government grant-in-aid funding but other sources. We must recognise the difficulties and challenges that the cultural sector in Scotland currently faces on funding, jobs, the cost of living crisis, and recovery after the pandemic. I believe that the sector’s interests must be fully and properly factored into the legislation, the implementation of the levy and the consultation on its operation, which is why I am here to speak to my amendments.

My amendments would make small changes to ensure that culture is referenced alongside tourism in key parts of the bill. Consultation will be absolutely critical to the implementation of the proposed levy. My amendments would require proper and meaningful consultation with the culture sector on that. As the minister said, they would also mean taking cognisance of local cultural strategies as well as tourism strategies.

I have spoken to many people in the cultural sector and the business tourism community who have told me that they support my amendments because they appreciate the importance of joint consultation with those industries. I therefore believe that my commonsense amendments would improve the bill in a small but significant way.

As the minister said, his amendments in the group would ensure appropriate consultation with local councils and tourism organisations. I hear what he said about provisions that include the relevant organisations, but I instinctively believe that we need culture to be specifically mentioned in the bill, to make it clear that cultural organisations in Scotland will be properly consulted and that cognisance will be taken of cultural strategies.

I will reflect on what the minister said. Although, instinctively, I do not agree with him, I will not seek to move my amendments. Instead, I will consider what the minister has said and will engage further with the culture sector and people in the tourism industry who are keen to see something being done in this area.

It is very regrettable that we are no longer part of the Erasmus+ programme. Alistair Sim and others have talked about its benefits this morning, and the points were well made. You said earlier that the UK Government looked at the costs and found them to be prohibitive. How much are the costs involved in that in terms of weighing up the costs and benefits of the policies? I apologise—I might be jumping the gun slightly, but, if there is no prospect of joining Erasmus+ in full, is there anything that stops short of that that we could potentially do that would improve the situation for universities and students in Scotland, the UK and the EU?

Thank you, convener, and good morning, Mr Wishart. I commend your committee for its report, in which you talk about the lack of a strategic big picture with regard to the UK Government’s work in relation to Scotland. You also talk about the need for co-operation and highlight the shared priorities between the Scottish and UK Governments. To what extent is the UK Government’s lack of a strategic big picture with regard to Scotland down to a lack of a strategic big picture from the UK and Scottish Governments in general?

You have talked about the important work that the UK Government is doing on defence and security—indeed, that work is really important at this time—and the Scottish Government’s important work on the diaspora. However, it is on the specific issue of economic interests and inward investment that I want to ask you about the extent to which you think that the UK Government’s lack of a strategic big picture in its work on Scotland comes from the lack of such a picture from both Governments—notwithstanding, of course, the good work that you have highlighted, and with which I would agree, on defence, security and the diaspora.