Chamber and committees

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.

I think that it is fair to observe two things. First, there has not been significant progress between the UK and the European Union so far. Secondly, preparations are under way in Brussels, London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast for forthcoming meetings in which more substantive progress can be made. That is the stage that we are at.

I observe that the UK Government has been taking the issue more seriously within Government, which is welcome. There have been changes to the machinery in the UK Government to deal with that, including a new Cabinet committee on Europe, which the Prime Minister chairs.

Clearly, the UK Government is thinking about what is coming up. It would be remiss not to draw attention to the changing geostrategic peril that we all feel in Europe at present, and that dimension will perhaps loom larger in everybody’s considerations, here and in the other capitals, of how we work together.

What can I imagine will be coming up? I can imagine that both the United Kingdom and the European Union will be focused on advancing shared interests in defence and security. We would very much welcome for there to be a joint statement on co-operation in that area.

I note that, overnight, the European Union has announced a very significant defence package, which is not open to the United Kingdom defence sector. That might change, were there to be a co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU. That is strong encouragement for that to happen. I think that there is goodwill on all sides to make progress in that area.

For the Scottish Government’s part—I think that you have heard me make this point before—we have, for the longest time, advanced the need for what I call a food, drink and agriculture agreement. The terminology is important, because people might understand what that is as opposed to a “sanitary and phytosanitary agreement”.

For those of us who have been speaking with our food and drink sector and our rural stakeholders, it seems that the general view is that it is very important that we should have such an agreement. We have been impressing that view on the UK Government and sharing it with European Union interlocutors.

There are other areas of common interest to the UK and the European Union: greater co-operation on energy and on law enforcement; addressing irregular migration; and perhaps having something like the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention for example. All those things might feature. Both sides have particular issues that might well be raised as part of the process. There is an expectation that the European Union is very keen to make progress on youth mobility, and we would share its interests in that. We will no doubt come back to that. There is also an expectation that fishing issues will be discussed, although there are no details about what that might involve. We very much hope that the UK Government will push for business mobility and mobility for touring artists.

We expect negotiations after the forthcoming summit to continue over the summer. We are not aware of discussions between the parties as yet on the timing of the next TCA Partnership Council or on the spring round of specialised committees. I think that we are at the cusp of making progress. We have been making our priorities clear, and no doubt we can go into that in detail.

In fairness to my opposite number in the UK Government, Nick Thomas-Symonds has been impressing on me and colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland that the UK Government wants to take the priorities of devolved Administrations seriously. We are taking that at face value, and we very much hope that progress can be made on those matters as well as on the other areas that will be discussed.

We have done something different from Wales, and I can go through those things. However, but as part of the process we have been looking at Turing and Taith and at Erasmus+ and saying there is no substitute. That is underlined by the fact that the Welsh Government is saying to the UK Government that it wishes the UK to look at going back into the Erasmus+ programme. That is my point—there is no substitute for Erasmus+. Why do not we all agree—I hope that we do—that Erasmus+ is the best show in town? Rather than going off and trying to replicate something that cannot deliver in the same way as Erasmus+ delivers, let us focus our attention on getting back into Erasmus+. Let us tell the UK Government that we care about it and think that it is important, and, as part of a wider mobility approach, let us tell European Union colleagues that we are in favour of Erasmus+ and of young people having that mobility between the United Kingdom and the European Union. That would seem to me to be a fair deal for everybody.

I would have to write to Mr Bibby about what will happen post this round of negotiations. I am working on the basis that we can persuade our colleagues to make progress, which will impact very much on how things go forward afterwards. If we know that Erasmus+ is going ahead, that will have a significant impact on the work that we currently undertake.

Indeed.

There is an important point of context in that regard, following on from the Windsor agreement, which relates to border controls between the UK and the European Union. As we know, the UK has not fully implemented a border control regime and it will have to do so.

This is one of the areas where it seems to me that, again, enlightened self-interest on everybody’s part has a role to play. Having an agriculture, food and drink agreement, if one were able to reach such a thing before the UK might have to introduce its full border regime, would obviate a lot of additional complications for our exporters and, indeed, those who import. It is important to recognise that that would be to the advantage of the food, drink and agriculture sectors in Scotland, the rest of the UK and the European Union. There is a virtuous circle there. We must acknowledge that that is part of a wider process but would also reduce the risks of greater friction.

I know that you have already heard evidence that there has already been a significant negative impact on the import and export of goods, and, if there were not an agriculture, food and drink agreement—an SPS agreement—which would obviate a very high percentage of requirements for border controls, there would be an even more negative impact were one to see border controls implemented, as the UK Government would need to do. That is why it is in all of our interests, as part of this process that we have been talking about here today, for an agreement to be reached in this area.

Did you want to hear from Dr Möschler?

It is fine; I would be delighted to hear from Dr Möschler. I should say, incidentally, that in this whole discussion, it is important to understand that our efforts in trying to have co-operative discussions with the UK Government and with European Union interlocutors are made significantly easier by having top-class representation both in London, in Scotland House, and Brussels—in an office that, incidentally, was set up by the Conservatives a number of decades ago—and by having a talented team on the ground who are best able to understand all information that we have to have about these important processes.

With that, I hand over to Dr Möschler and put on record my appreciation of him and his colleagues in Scotland House and Brussels.

I have already said that I think there has been a difference in tone, and not just because of a new Government that is saying that it is keen on a reset. I have said before, and not just at this evidence session, that the previous UK Conservative Government, which Mr Kerr supported, was absolutely right to go back into Horizon. Like many other European programmes, Horizon is one in which our institutions were really big participants—disproportionately so, relative to the rest of the United Kingdom, in many respects.

For me, there is a very good reason and rationale for that. Incidentally, we have other programmes that have proven themselves in many different ways—take, for example, Erasmus+, where, in terms of headcount, we in Scotland had disproportionate take-up and participants from more deprived backgrounds relative to the rest of the UK.

I am making the point that I think that, on this issue, Mr Kerr is right. It is a rare thing for me to agree with him. Please can that be minuted to make sure that the record shows it to be so?

I am quoting the head of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, who wrote to the Prime Minister saying that the deal was “desperately poor”, generating

“huge disappointment and a great deal of anger about the failure to deliver on promises made repeatedly to the industry.”