Chamber and committees

I regularly listen to Mr Kerr speaking in the chamber in defence of the Parliament. In many of those contexts, I do not agree with the point that he is making. However, when it comes to defending the position of the Parliament in relation to this question, apparently that is dogmatic. I reject that.

The position that we have set out has been the position of this Government and this Parliament and of our Welsh colleagues and the Welsh Senedd. It is a mainstream opinion and concern that, as I already mentioned, was directly addressed by Lord Hope, who is not a member of this Government or any governing party. In fact, as far as I am aware, he is a member of no party. I also draw the committee’s attention, if members have not seen them, to the late Donald Dewar’s contributions on the question of the devolution settlement that was passed.

I have listened closely to the evidence that business organisations have provided to this committee. They have made it clear that they want a regulatory environment that fosters clarity and certainty, and they have made it equally clear that they do not want a confused and uncertain regulatory environment. The Scottish Government wants those outcomes for businesses, too.

However, I would make this point: other countries manage to ensure a properly functioning internal market while recognising and protecting local powers and responsibilities, and the defenders of the internal market act will have to explain why that is somehow impossible in the UK. That is the point on which there is unhappiness on the part of both the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government: the UK Government has overlooked—that would be the most charitable way of putting it—the position of both the Scottish and Welsh Governments and Parliaments, which voted for the repeal of the internal market act, in having a review of the options and choosing to exclude that particular one. Theoretically, one could have considered it and then concluded that that was not the route to take, but to exclude the option from the off is, I think, more a reflection of the UK Government’s position than that of anybody else.

I am doing my job in defending the position of this Parliament and of this Government by recognising that common frameworks are a constructive way of working together; indeed, I have given an example of investing in that process myself. What I will not do is accept the continuation of something that is damaging to the devolution settlement, is damaging to this Parliament and is absolutely and totally unnecessary.

That reflects the answer that I gave to Mr Harvie. Going forward, I am in favour of as much reflection and having as much of an informed understanding of this issue as possible. It is in all our interests to do that. I will come back to that point if Mr Bibby has any follow-up questions.

I have a supplementary point in response to the previous question that he asked me. I omitted to point out that the internal market act is unique in not allowing for any consideration of non-economic policy outcomes. Herein lies the challenge. Policy divergence in devolution relates to the full range of responsibilities of this Parliament—unfettered. Yet, this is an act that will only allow decisions to be made that relate to economic consequences. For example, if one looks at the operation of the internal market, one can see that the entire focus is economic—it is not focused on public health, the environment or any other devolved matter. That is the point that I have been trying to make consistently about the understanding of proportionality and balance. Incidentally, that is something that happened when we were in the European Union but does not happen in the United Kingdom under the internal market act.

We have a responsibility to think about all those other policy areas when we vote on proposals in the Scottish Parliament. We have to work our way through the consequences of trying to make that work in relation to the common market in Great Britain—and we have not even touched on the consequences of a part of the United Kingdom being part of the single European market as well as the United Kingdom single market. That is something that we will all have to reflect on after yesterday’s announcement by the US President. Will one part of the United Kingdom be facing tariffs that other parts of the United Kingdom do not?

Having a system in place with commonly agreed intentions is where we should be investing our efforts to try to find our way through the challenge that Mr Bibby has identified. That challenge is about getting the right balance—this is the point about proportionality and balance—when it comes to policy innovation, rather than having a simple, economically driven assessment, which many people fear will tend towards the lowest common denominator as opposed to having innovative policy that might lead to better outcomes in different places.

The bottom line of all this is to understand a simple point: 85 per cent of the population and electorate of this state live in one constituent part of it. Unfortunately, many decision makers in that part of the United Kingdom think that they should reserve for themselves the ultimate right to determine what policies should impact on us all. That is not what devolution is about.

Those organisations have not, in terms, said that they wish the retention of the internal market act.

I think that what everybody is agreed on is that one wants certainty about how one manages the internal market. As I have said to this committee, and as the position paper makes clear—it is the position that we share with the Welsh Government—common frameworks are the way to do that, and the internal market act is not required to provide certainty.

The internal market act is creating uncertainty in concerning ways, due to a long list of potential interventions, which are leading businesses to be uncertain about what the outcomes will be. It is the obverse of what Mr Kerr presented to the committee in his question; the uncertainty is caused by the internal market act rather than by common frameworks, which most mainstream commentators would agree are the best way to proceed.

I have looked very closely at the evidence that has been presented to the committee, and I will highlight a few quotes that are relevant to my considerations. One of the most pre-eminent public policy experts in the country, Professor Nicola McEwen, wrote that the act

“has already had a constraining impact”

on the devolved Governments’ policy ambitions. She noted:

“The UK Government should recognise and address that if it is to achieve a meaningful reset in its relationships with the devolved governments”.

Alcohol Focus Scotland said that the act

“substantially undermines devolved regulatory autonomy, limiting the ability of devolved governments to implement measures to improve public health.”

NFU Scotland has warned that the act

“drives a coach and horses through the principles of common frameworks and almost renders them redundant”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 16 December 2021; c 4.]

NFU Scotland has also said that the act has the potential

“to undermine the devolved nature of agricultural policy”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 22 March 2023; c 4.]

Scottish Environment LINK called the act “entirely unfit for purpose” and said:

“It works directly against the principles of devolution”.

It warned of

“years of inertia, delay and uncertainty”

if the act’s impact on devolution is not addressed.

The Scottish Crofting Federation said that it feared that

“the proposed legislation will lead to a race to the bottom, threatening our high standards in food, environment and animal welfare, thus damaging the image of Scottish produce ... our Parliament needs to retain control over agricultural support, as enshrined in the current devolution settlement.”

The evidence that has been provided on the subject is very clear. I have said it before and will say it again: the Scottish Government supports the efficient, effective working of a single market in the United Kingdom that involves proportionality, and it supports the other measures that I outlined in my opening statement. The good news is that we have a way to do that and we agree, in principle, that using common frameworks is the best way to do it. That is the position of this Government and this Parliament, and the Welsh Senedd has the same position.

As a cabinet secretary who is answerable to this Parliament, it is my job to stand up for its position, which is that the internal market act should be repealed, and the evidence that we have from external stakeholders is absolutely clear on the issue. Let us concentrate on making common frameworks work. That is the way to do it because, apart from anything else, devolution, at its heart, is about being able to innovate and make different policy choices. If we have legislation in place that drives

“a coach and horses through the principles of common frameworks”

and, by extension, devolution, that is not acceptable.

That is why our position is that the UK Government should respect the views of this Parliament and the Welsh Senedd and consider repealing the internal market act, and we must invest all our efforts into making the common frameworks work to the ends that we all—including Mr Kerr—agree should be the case across the United Kingdom.

My officials have not provided me with that evidence, if it was indeed provided to this committee. I am unaware of that evidence being given to this committee—

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.