Official Report 984KB pdf
The next item of business is a statement by Angus Robertson on the Scottish Government response to the outcome of the European Union-United Kingdom summit on 19 May. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:15
Yesterday’s agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the European Union is a matter of significant consequence for Scotland. The agreement will bring limited benefits to the wider economy while falling painfully short of the benefits that Scotland would have as a member of the European Union.
At a time of global insecurity, the importance of European nations working together cannot be overstated. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, captured that well yesterday, stating:
“We are friends, and we are Europeans, we are very like-minded. We share the same interests and the same values.”
Those are the values of democracy, equality, rule of law and respect for human rights. The Scottish Government and the people of Scotland have long held that view.
Yesterday’s agreement was an acknowledgement by the UK Government that we continue to live through the negative impacts of the previous Government’s catastrophic error of inflicting a hard Brexit on the people of Scotland. Sadly, many of those devastating impacts will remain. The UK Government’s release on the agreement stated that it:
“meets the red lines set out in the government’s manifesto—no return to the single market, no return to the customs union, and no return to freedom of movement.”
The Labour Government is trumpeting that it will hold fast to the Conservatives’ hard Brexit, no matter the economic, social and security benefits that we lost by being dragged out of the EU. If it is serious about economic growth, the Labour UK Government needs to drop its red lines on rejoining the single market, the customs union and freedom of movement.
I must say a word about the defence and security partnership that was agreed yesterday. With war having returned to the continent, it is critical that we, in Scotland, can contribute to a strong and united Europe and help to put an end to Putin’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It is clear that our common security will be strengthened by acting together. As the president of the European Council, António Costa, pointed out, together, Europe has great potential to deliver.
More generally, many parts of yesterday’s agreement match the priorities that the Scottish Government has set out clearly and where we have called for progress for many years. That is, of course, to be welcomed. For example, progress on commitments to deepen aspects of justice and security co-operation with the EU is overdue.
As with our shared security, our mutual prosperity can most effectively be enhanced by acting together. I have called many times for an agriculture, food and drink—or sanitary and phytosanitary—agreement to reduce the checks on and delays in goods moving between Scotland and the EU. That will reduce frictions and delays in accessing important EU markets for our Scottish food exporters while also reopening the export of our seed potatoes. I would like to see rapid progress on confirming the scope and implementation of that agreement.
On energy, the linking of UK and EU emissions trading schemes is an important step forward, as are the wider initiatives on enhancing climate co-operation, and the commitments to explore rejoining the EU’s internal electricity market, which has the opportunity to reduce energy bills for consumers here. Scotland has a huge offer to make to our neighbours with our resources and expertise to help to build the clean, renewable energy of the future. In that regard, I particularly welcome the reference to closer co-operation on new technologies and the possibility that it could create for Scotland to contribute to Europe’s hydrogen backbone. Once again, we see that the most effective way to ensure security and prosperity for us all is to work together, and it is only through co-operation that we can confront the scale of the climate challenge.
On trade in services in the agreement, I welcome the commitment to further dialogue on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and on short-term entry and temporary stay arrangements for business.
One of the gravest consequences of Brexit has been the loss of people’s ability to move across Europe—for business, for study and for travel. Therefore, I am glad to see that the agreement contains a commitment to work towards a scheme to better enable young people in the UK to work, study and travel in the EU and vice versa. However, that pales in comparison with the benefits of freedom of movement.
We have for many years urged the UK Government to reassociate to the Erasmus+ programme to allow Scottish students the opportunity to study abroad and to allow Scotland to welcome the EU’s students. The announcement that the UK and EU will work on the UK rejoining the exchange programme, subject to agreement on financial terms, is welcome. Sadly, a similar commitment to rejoin the creative Europe programme has not been agreed.
It is clear that the UK Government has finally sought progress in many of the areas where we, in Scotland, have called for action and where, frankly, it has been self-evidently in the interests of us all to co-operate with our neighbours across Europe.
Let me bring a note of realism and then propose a better way ahead. The fact that the agreement was reached without the explicit engagement of the devolved Governments on the negotiation detail—not least on fisheries—is not just an affront to devolution; it has put at risk and will continue to put at risk the benefits of any commitments for the people of Scotland.
Although it is true that the UK Government did give read-outs of some areas of progress, it reached an agreement on fisheries without any recourse to, involvement of or approval by the devolved Governments. In fact, all three interministerial meetings between the UK Government and the devolved Governments covering environment, rural affairs and agriculture, where fisheries should have been discussed, were cancelled by the UK Government.
The meeting scheduled for 10 March was cancelled by the UK Government. The meeting scheduled for 31 March was cancelled by the UK Government. The meeting scheduled for 12 May was cancelled by the UK Government. A call scheduled this last weekend, while negotiations were under way between the UK and EU, involving UK minister Daniel Zeichner and Scottish Government minister Jim Fairlie, was cancelled by the UK Government. An additional call scheduled this last weekend, involving the senior Scottish Government civil servant on European affairs and the UK Government Cabinet Office was cancelled by the UK Government.
In the one face-to-face meeting that did take place in the immediate run-up to the summit, involving me on behalf of the Scottish Government, alongside the Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive, the fisheries issue was not even raised by the UK minister Nick Thomas-Symonds—and there were certainly no prospects of a 12-year lock-in deal. I had to raise the issue, I had to ask for documentation and I had to ask for draft proposals—the sort of information that is shared between the European Commission and EU member states—and I said that the UK Government still had a number of days to provide that. It did not do so.
The shortcomings of that approach have been echoed by other devolved Government ministers in Wales and Northern Ireland. Last year, we were promised a reset of relations by the incoming UK Government: a reset with the European Union, and a reset with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Excluding devolved Governments from meaningful consultation, repeatedly cancelling communications and sharing important details only after agreement has been reached in devolved areas is not a reset. It is not good enough.
The Scottish Government stands ready to engage constructively as more detail is added to yesterday’s agreement. The Scottish Government must be more closely involved as the UK Government develops its future priorities for working with the EU. The truth is that the commitments made yesterday can stem only some of the harms of Brexit.
While the Prime Minister proclaims that he has respected his own self-imposed damaging red lines—not rejoining the customs union or the free market or introducing freedom of movement—we say that that is preventing us from taking exactly the measures that we need to create greatest benefit in our relationship with the rest of Europe. While we stand ready to engage constructively, I say again that no agreement can deliver the security, economic and social benefits that we lost with Brexit.
I remind members that today’s statement is follow-on business. I expect those who wish to participate in any item of business to be in the chamber for the beginning of that item.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item. I would be grateful if members who wish to put a question were to press their request-to-speak button.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement, which was helpful. There is much in the statement to discuss, but I will focus on fishing.
The deal that has been negotiated by the Prime Minister with the EU is the worst deal possible for Scotland’s fishermen, short of going back into the common fisheries policy. Sir Keir Starmer caved in to French demands, giving EU vessels near-unfettered access to UK waters for up to 12 years. You can look at me, Labour members, while I am telling you this—you have done this to them.
Always speak through the chair, please.
Sorry, Presiding Officer.
The deal has been described as
“a horror show for Scottish fishermen”
by Elspeth Macdonald of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation.
It concerns me that today’s statement lacks any focus on the substance of the deal and its impact on our fishing communities. The cynic in me wonders whether that is because the Scottish National Party would force Scotland back into the common fisheries policy, going even further in surrendering our hard-fought fishing rights.
Although I would like to focus on the SNP’s odd policy position, what really matters is the livelihoods of our fishing fleet and the communities that are connected with it. I have two important questions. What will the SNP Government now do to support our vital fishing communities, and what would the SNP have done differently from Labour?
Tim Eagle is right to take a critical perspective on the fisheries agreement that was reached, which is a continuation of the deal that was negotiated by a Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another. There are many members who wish to put questions.
I know that it is very difficult for members of the Conservative front bench to hear this, but it is a fact that what the Labour Party has done is agree to a 12-year roll-over of the deal that was agreed by the Conservatives. Therefore, I will take no lessons from the Conservatives or the Labour Party on the fishing deal.
Tim Eagle asked an important question, and I share his concern. Where is the detail of the deal? Where is it? We asked for it. We asked for what might be negotiated, but we did not receive that. We have asked for what has been negotiated, but, short of a line that literally acknowledges the shortcomings of the deal—that hundreds of millions of pounds should be paid to fishing communities, which I have to conclude is because the deal is bad—we have no details of how it will be allocated or where it will be allocated.
Tim Eagle asked what we will do about that. That is one of the first things that I will ask the UK Government minister, Nick Thomas-Symonds, with whom I have been discussing the agreement, when I speak to him later this afternoon. I will be happy to report back to Mr Eagle so that he is aware of the conclusions from that.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement.
The SNP response to the UK-EU deal is miserable, opportunistic, inconsistent and out of step with the interests of the Scottish people. The cabinet secretary, who supports membership of the common fisheries policy, has displayed full outrage online when it comes to fishing, but he has also displayed that he is out of touch with the vast majority of Scottish businesses and consumers.
Supermarkets have said that the deal has the potential to significantly reduce the cost of the weekly shop. Salmon Scotland, which represents our biggest food export product, has welcomed the deal and so, too, have the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, BAE Systems, Ryanair, UK Hospitality Industries, the Food and Drink Federation and many more organisations.
The new UK Labour Government is getting on with the job of rebuilding our economy. Meanwhile, the SNP is all over the place and seems to be opposing the deal, alongside Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch. Given the overwhelming support from Scottish industry for the deal, does the cabinet secretary not accept that opposing the deal is a major miscalculation?
As with most deals, there are things that are worth welcoming. I hope that everybody agrees that an agriculture, food and sanitary and phytosanitary deal is a good thing. We have called for it for the longest of times, and I outlined in my statement the further areas that we welcome.
Curiously, Mr Bibby has come to the chamber today but will not even echo the criticism made by his Labour colleague the First Minister of Wales. Eluned Morgan shared the same criticism as that made by the Scottish Government—as have ministers in Northern Ireland—of the way in which the UK Labour Government has dealt with the fisheries issue. Why Neil Bibby finds it so difficult to come here and acknowledge that is beyond me.
Do I support a deal on SPS arrangements? Absolutely. Do I support being part of Erasmus+? Yes, I do. Am I sorry that the UK Government did not allow Scotland and the rest of the UK to rejoin the creative Europe programme? Yes, because that is a shortcoming—[Interruption.] Neil Bibby must reflect on why the Labour party in Wales is prepared to be critical of the fisheries arrangements in the deal when the Scottish Labour party, in the country that has the biggest single concentration of fishing interests—[Interruption.]
Please be quiet, Mr Bibby.
—anywhere in the UK cannot bring itself to do that.
The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has described the deal as a
“horror show ... far worse than Boris Johnson’s botched Brexit agreement”
that shows the
“total indifference of the British political establishment to the interests of our fishing sector”.
Labour’s latest betrayal will be raw for many in our fishing and coastal communities and sends them the message that they do not matter. What is the SNP’s message for them?
It beggars belief that the agreement has been reached by selling out Scotland’s fishing communities. Labour promised those communities that their interests would be protected in the process, but, after years of Westminster’s broken promises, fishing communities in Scotland could now find themselves in the worst of all worlds.
Fishing was famously—infamously—described by Westminster as “expendable” when the UK joined Europe. I think that there was a Conservative Government at the time, and it is clear that that attitude has not changed in the half-century since.
Given the importance of fishing to Scotland, it is ridiculous and deeply disrespectful that the Scottish Government was not even consulted. We urge the UK Government to urgently clarify how the new fishing and coastal growth fund will be administered and apportioned.
I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to members for missing the start of the statement.
Only last month, the SNP’s Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands confirmed in this chamber that
“the common fisheries policy is an integral part of EU law. It is well established that membership of the CFP is a fundamental requirement of EU membership. The Scottish Government supports the overarching principles and strategic outcomes of the CFP”—[Official Report, 2 April 2025; c 28.]
We can all agree that Labour’s deal is a sell-out of our fishing communities, but will Angus Robertson also accept that, although Labour may have given away the opportunity of annual negotiations for the next 12 years, the SNP’s obsession with rejoining the EU and so rejoining the CFP means that it wants to give that away permanently?
No, I do not accept that characterisation.
How is it going to work?
Let us hear one another.
Jamie Halcro Johnston asks how it works. Under this agreement—[Interruption.]—I am not sure that Mr Halcro Johnston wants to hear the answer.
Do continue, cabinet secretary. Members, let us hear one another.
Under this arrangement, because this is a statement about the agreement reached by the UK Labour Government, on Scotland’s behalf, Scotland has been signed up to a 12-year tie-in that is a straitjacket deal on fisheries. Over the next 12 years—[Interruption.]
Please sit down, cabinet secretary.
This is not acceptable. Members have an opportunity to put a question and the minister responding has an opportunity to respond. We are not going to have an on-going, backward and forward conversation.
Perhaps Mr Halcro Johnston should turn up at the start of debates and statements to hear what people actually say.
I am surprised that he does not know that European Union member states are part of an annual negotiating process. This 12-year straitjacket deal is not part of that process, which is why I have said that it is the worst of all worlds.
The fact that the UK Government could not even share with the Scottish Government the detail of what of what it was prepared to negotiate, and to negotiate away, is something that we deeply regret—sadly, no one in the Conservative seats has thought it important enough even to mention.
Although any progress in repairing the damage of the intergenerational catastrophe that is Brexit has to be welcomed, the fact is that, when it comes to renewing relationships with the European Union, small steps just will not cut it. What is the Scottish Government’s view on how much progress can actually be made regarding safeguarding Scotland’s interests while the UK Government maintains red lines on the single market, the customs union and freedom of movement?
No agreement can deliver the economic, social and security benefits that we lost with Brexit in 2020. If the UK Government is serious about economic growth, it needs to drop its red lines around the single market, the customs union and freedom of movement.
The Labour and Conservative parties are now both pro-Brexit parties, while we believe that the best answer is for Scotland to be an independent member state of the European Union. Those parties seek only to ameliorate the damage of Brexit. Any less damage is a good thing, but why do we not go for the real deal and be part of the single market, part of the customs union and part of the European Union? The Labour Party used to believe in that.
The SPS agreement that was announced in yesterday’s summit cuts red tape, will save businesses thousands in fees and has been welcomed across the food and drink sector. What impact will the SPS agreement have on Scotland’s food and drink exports and how it will support the Scotland Food & Drink partnership’s ambition for food and drink to be a £20 billion sector?
That is a very sensible question from Foysol Choudhury. I try to talk about an agriculture, food and drink deal rather than an SPS deal, because I do not think that anybody in the real world knows what SPS is. It is a deal on what we produce on our farms, what our fishermen and fisherwomen land, and what food we export.
In this country, we produce a lot of food and drink. We export a lot of it, and a lot of it goes to the European Union. Having an SPS agreement, which the Scottish Government called for and which I impressed on the UK Government it should agree to, is something that I and the Government welcome.
Mr Choudhury may or may not be aware that the UK Government has yet to introduce the border checks that it will have to introduce under Brexit agreements. One of the advantages of the SPS agreement is that it will obviate, I think, around 90 per cent of the necessity for any kind of border checks. That is a good thing. Incidentally, that would also be the case between an independent Scotland in the European Union and the rest of the United Kingdom outside it.
Will the cabinet secretary set out what the main and most damaging points of Brexit have been for Scotland, particularly with regard to the fish processing sector in the north-east, and how, if at all, the agreement that has been reached will ameliorate those harms? Does he agree that, in the extremely uncertain economic and geopolitical environment that we currently live in, it is vital that Scotland has the security, stability and opportunity that comes with membership of the European Union through independence?
The fish processing sector has suffered for two particular reasons since Brexit. The first is to do with getting the product to market—a market that is often, significantly, within the European Union—and the second is to do with the end of free movement. Previously, a large number of EU citizens were prepared to work in fish processing, but many of them have now left, and it is difficult to fill the jobs at many fish processing sites.
The issue relating to access to market will be obviated and the position improved by an SPS agreement. The ability to get product from Scotland to the European Union will be significantly improved. That is a good thing.
Will the agreement deal with free movement and the restrictions on people being able to work here? It will not. In fact, because of the Enoch Powell-type rhetoric that we heard from Keir Starmer the other week, we know that the UK Government has absolutely no interest in making sure that Scotland has the migration policy that we require.
The answer to Audrey Nicoll’s question is that we have a mixture of two things. There is an upside to do with getting fish and shellfish to market. However, there is the downside that the agreement does not deal with free movement. If the UK Government had dealt with the Scottish Government properly in the run-up to the agreement, we would perhaps have been able to obviate all of that.
The anti-European posturing from some members is out of step not only with Scottish public opinion, but with public opinion throughout the rest of the UK. The public want progress to be made on youth mobility, which should have been among the first things to be signed off between the UK Government and the EU, but it was not.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is sickening to see politicians who exercised the right of freedom of movement when they were young depriving today’s younger generation of that same right and freedom? Will he reinforce to the UK Government that, if it is to make progress in the future on an issue that impacts on devolved matters such as further and higher education, it must start talking to us?
I agree entirely with Patrick Harvie about the damaging impact that Brexit has had on people’s life experience and ability to travel, work, live and love elsewhere in Europe, and on the ability of our neighbours from the rest of Europe to come here. Since Brexit, the damage has been felt particularly in our university sector. He is absolutely right to highlight that.
One of the difficulties with the agreement is that there is, literally, no detail. There is a commitment to a “youth experience scheme” that is supposed to afford young people the ability to come and go. We do not know how many young people or when the scheme will start; nor do we know any of the rules around it. None of that has been shared with us. Do I welcome the fact that a scheme may come that might be good? Yes—if that is what it is. However, sadly, we have none of that detail because, unfortunately, the UK Government has not shared any of that information with us—or with members on Labour’s front bench.
I offer my apologies for my slightly late arrival.
The agreement is a first step and Liberal Democrats welcome it, but we hope that it is just a first step and that there will be still further closer integration.
I was surprised to hear the cabinet secretary claim that his Government has lobbied the UK Government to reassociate with Erasmus+. Within 18 months of Brexit, a Liberal Democrat Minister for Education in Wales had a replacement scheme up and running. Ever since then, we have daily tried to get the Scottish Government to do likewise, yet it is dangerously close to being lapped by the UK Government in the pages of the agreement. Will the cabinet secretary now take the opportunity to apologise to young Scots who have missed out on five years’ worth of vital exchange opportunities?
I have had this interchange with Alex Cole-Hamilton before and, from the outset, I have been of the view that there is no effective substitute for the Erasmus+ scheme other than Erasmus+. Although the Taith scheme in Wales had much to commend it, I am sure that if, in the cold light of day, he looks at the scope and scale of that scheme compared with Erasmus+, even he must realise that Erasmus+ is where it is at.
I hope that Alex Cole-Hamilton will support the Scottish Government in making the case to the UK Government that the scheme should be as ambitious for and widely accessible to as many students as possible. Again, that is an area on which I could not give him any information, if he were to ask, because, sadly, the UK Government has not shared that with the Scottish Government—or with the Scottish Labour Party.
I welcome closer integration with our EU neighbours. The EU is the world’s biggest economic bloc and it is critical to our economic and cultural prosperity. Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster, not least for our culture sector and for touring artists. It is, therefore, very disappointing that those areas did not form part of the negotiations.
Labour promised change and a reset of the relationship with the Scottish Government. Does the cabinet secretary see any discernible difference between the attitude of the Labour Government and the previous Tory incumbents?
On that question, sadly, I do not. It took the Scottish Government to raise the culture sector, touring artists and rejoining creative Europe with the UK Government and ask where it was on those issues. I asked for any documentation and negotiating positions a number of days before the discussions took place, in the run-up to yesterday’s summit, but we received absolutely nothing back—zero—from the UK Government. This is the Government of a party that said that it was in favour of supporting the culture sector and touring artists, and that understood—at least in its rhetoric—that creative Europe is a good thing to be part of. It is therefore a shame that we have a missed opportunity and that the agreement does not deliver on any of those things.
There is no doubt about the significant negative impact of the deal on the Scottish pelagic and demersal fishing industry as a result of the complete capitulation of the Labour Government. That said, many inshore fishermen and farmers in my constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries will welcome changes to the sanitary and phytosanitary checks, allowing more friction-free access to European markets for our time-sensitive exports, including scallops, langoustines, lobsters, salmon and Scotch beef.
The biggest threat to the inshore fisheries and the agriculture sector, however, is the total lack of progress made by the Scottish National Party Government and its abysmal failure to deliver sustainable and profitable inshore fisheries management or, nine years on, a fit-for-purpose replacement for the common agricultural policy for our farmers.
When will this Government stop pointing the finger at failures elsewhere? When will it pull its finger out and step up to its responsibilities to deliver a just transition for our fishing, farming and food sectors?
I am sure that the Presiding Officer wishes me to concentrate my remarks on the subject of today’s statement. On that note, I agree with Finlay Carson that an SPS agreement—that is, an agrifood deal—is a good thing for farming communities such as those that he represents. I agree that that is so, and I agree with him about the shortcomings of the UK Government’s position in relation to the 12-year straitjacket that it has agreed to.
Given his constituency interest, Finlay Carson might have asked about—but did not—the impact of the deal on trade with Northern Ireland, which is part of the European single market. We very much hope that the deal will be of benefit to trade between Northern Ireland and Scotland, and, by extension, the rest of Great Britain. That is the position that the Scottish Government holds.
Scottish vessels make up around 61 per cent of the UK fishing fleet, yet there has been a renegotiation on fisheries without any discussion or engagement with the Scottish Government. What possible justification could there be for that other than to make a political point by sidelining the Scottish Government to the detriment of Scotland’s fishing interests and coastal communities?
I genuinely do not know what the UK Government’s negotiating strategy was. I think that there was a general expectation that there would likely be a multiyear outcome when it comes to fishing. However, I do not think that any serious commentator anywhere thought that there would be a 12-year agreement by the UK Government. Where that came from, I know not. The UK Government never raised it in any meetings with the Scottish Government or with colleagues from Wales or Northern Ireland. It is for the UK Government to explain where that came from. I do not believe that it would have been necessary in order to secure the upsides of the deal.
Although upsides there are, on the substance of a 12-year straitjacket as opposed to having annual negotiations or securing an SPS agreement—which European friends wanted to secure—I am at a loss to understand why the UK Government was prepared to give that away; I simply do not understand it.
Does the cabinet secretary agree with Charles Woodburn, the chief executive of BAE Systems—which is the largest single manufacturing industrial employer in Glasgow and the wider west of Scotland—who described the deal as a positive step forward for both EU and UK security? Will the Scottish Government work with the UK Government in supporting Scottish defence contractors to bid for the €150 billion-worth of export contracts and for the security action for the Europe project?
For the uninitiated, the background around the agreement is that the European Union has put aside a very significant fund to invest in defence, given the scale of the challenge that we face as a continent. It is a good thing that the UK has reached an agreement that it and the EU will work together, and that the EU will give access to that fund to defence contractors in the UK, which may very well be in Scotland. That is a good thing. We need to contribute to the common security of our continent, given the scale of the threat that faces us.
The Scottish Government will, of course, work right across all the areas of the agreement to work out what advantage can be secured, notwithstanding the downsides, which I have updated the chamber on. However, defence and security should be a priority for all of us.
That concludes the ministerial statement on the Scottish Government’s response to the outcome of the EU-UK summit on 19 May. I will allow a moment for members on the front benches to get organised for the next item of business.