Official Report 627KB pdf
Agenda item 2 concerns written biannual updates from the Scottish Government in relation to a range of European Union issues. Members have a copy of the updates in the meeting papers—do they wish to raise any questions or issues?
I had a look through the papers and I have a few points. First, there have obviously been developments with Erasmus this week in the House of Commons. We need to get further information about that, because the upshot is, by all accounts, very worrying indeed.
Secondly, there is the issue of what happens after the horizon 2020 programme ends. I know that the Scottish Government is seeking clarity from the United Kingdom Government, and I am not sure what the role for the committee would be at this point, but the issue will have huge implications.
Lastly, I note that the Government established a steering group on post-structural funds and that a consultation is out at the moment, with a view to there being a report in the spring. However, according to the civil service, apparently spring is summer. We will have to watch out for that, because it would be useful to get in the Minister for Trade, Investment and Innovation, Ivan McKee, a bit later on in that process to hear what the steering group is suggesting further to the consultation. That is all that I have to say.
On 5 December 2018, in response to a question in the House of Commons from Patricia Gibson MP, the Prime Minister of the day, Theresa May, said that an announcement would be made on the shared prosperity fund before Christmas. However, 13 months later, there has still not been any progress that I am aware of. As we see in the letter from Ivan McKee, European structural fund programmes were placed on full suspension on 15 November. As such, this committee should press the UK Government to get some detail on what the implications are and whether the funds that are being lost will be restored. The UK Government has been saying for more than a year that they will be, but we do not have any hard evidence for that, and we do not seem to be able to see any real financial commitment at this point in time.
I agree with Annabelle Ewing that yesterday’s developments in the House of Commons regarding Erasmus are deeply worrying. Our committee has previously undertaken work regarding Erasmus plus. I put on record, again, that, as someone who benefited from studying through an Erasmus scheme and through the European social fund, I know how beneficial it is.
That is a matter of debate, to be fair, Stuart. [Laughter.]
This is a public session.
I genuinely believe that it would be useful for us to write to the Scottish and UK Governments on the back of those developments to try to obtain further information or guidance regarding what might happen in a post-Brexit situation in which we do not have an Erasmus scheme.
I agree with everything that has been said so far—particularly Stuart McMillan’s point around writing to both Governments. However, the Scottish Government can inform us of little more than it already has, because it is receiving so little information. If we ask a Scottish Government minister to appear before us, I am sure that they will. However, clearly, we need far more information from the UK Government than it has thus far been providing either to this committee or to the Scottish Government. Getting written information from UK ministers is one thing, but we should ask them to appear before the committee. I accept that we have had an extremely low response rate to previous requests for UK Government ministers to appear before us. However, we should make that request, and we should make it on the record. If we do anything short of that, we simply will not receive the information that we require.
As I considered the statistics in the report before us, what struck me is the remarkable decline in the number of French and German modern language teachers in our secondary schools. Although that has been compensated for by an increase in the number of teachers of Spanish and other European languages, France and Germany are major trading partners and major nations in the EU. I wonder whether we could find out whether the Scottish Government is concerned about that decline, and, if so, what it is doing about it.
As well as the number of teachers of Spanish increasing, I note that the number of teachers of other modern languages—which were not named—also increased. That is an interesting point.
John Swinney talks in his letter about the survey that indicates that
“about 70% of secondary schools are providing the full L2 entitlement”.
He also said that the results of the survey are being analysed. I want to confirm that we, as a committee, will receive a copy of that analysis, which will give us more detail on which languages are being offered and to what extent, and on where the geographical focus is. That would be helpful.
I completely agree with what Ross Greer said. I think that we are all well aware that the UK Government is less than enthusiastic about sending UK ministers to appear before us. However, what about the Scotland Office? If UK ministers are not willing to come themselves, surely, they can send a proxy from the Scotland Office to this committee?
Thank you for that.
I will briefly follow on from the points that Mike Rumbles raised around modern languages. The Education and Skills Committee is doing work that relates to that as part of wider work on the senior phase. We could write to the Education and Skills Committee—which I also sit on—and ask that some of the specific questions that we have raised today be taken up as part of its inquiry.
I was going to suggest that, so thank you—that is excellent. As members have no other points, I note that I agree with the points that were raised. In particular, the work that we did on Erasmus was of a very high quality, and it is important that we keep on top of that.
I draw the committee’s attention to the letter from Mr Lochhead about horizon 2020. It notes that the guarantees that are offered by the UK Government go only so far, and mentions that parts of horizon 2020 are
“unlikely to be open to the UK as a non-associated ... third country”.
It also mentions the significant loss of income to research organisations in Scotland,
“depending on the Brexit date.”
First, I suggest that we raise with Scottish ministers the points that we have raised here, in a letter that is signed off by me and the deputy convener, and which covers all the points. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
If also seems that members would like us to raise some of those issues with the UK Government, which is—in many of those matters—the decision maker. Do members agree that we should do something in that regard?
Members indicated agreement.
We now move into private session.
11:30 Meeting continued in private until 11:39.