Chamber and committees

For the record, the decrease is therefore worse than 81 per cent, which should give us all cause for concern.

The fact that the UK left Erasmus+ has been massively detrimental to young people. We remember, of course, that the UK Prime Minister at the time, Boris Johnson, gave an assurance to the House of Commons that that would not be the case. He said that the UK would remain in the Erasmus+ scheme and lauded what it had delivered for young people. I agree with him on that. I will say more about that once I have spoken about culture. The UK’s withdrawal from Erasmus+ did not need to happen. It was unnecessary and was a form of self-harm from the point of view of younger people’s life chances.

Similarly, the UK did not need to leave the creative Europe programme. Members of Scotland’s creative community are absolutely clear about their desire for Scotland and the UK to be part of that programme. They look at other third countries that are members of it and see how those countries benefit from being part of it, and they do not understand why the UK is not.

I would strongly encourage the UK Government to look at both those areas, in the same way that the previous UK Government did in relation to the horizon programme, which is a similar programme for university and wider research. It was acknowledged that it was a big mistake to leave that programme. The university sector was keen to rejoin it, and the most recent UK Conservative Government realised that the UK could again play a part in it.

I see Erasmus+ and creative Europe in exactly the same way. There is a willingness among European Union countries and institutions for the UK to rejoin those schemes. I very much hope that that will be the case because, for young people and people in our creative sector, that would go a long way to ending the self-harm that we have had to endure since Brexit. On a more positive note, it would enable us to mend and rebuild educational opportunities for young people to study and learn, and it would facilitate international co-operation for our creative sector.

That, too.

Welcome back to the committee, Mr Harvie. It is nice to see you in your place. I will allow my civil service colleagues to collect any thoughts or reflections that they may have, because, as committee members will appreciate, most of the work that is done in preparation for and as part of such processes is driven at a working level by officials speaking to one another regularly. However, I will be happy to talk about my experience in dealing with UK Government colleagues and European interlocutors as part of the process.

The term “reset” is not liked in Brussels, but I think that we all understand what is meant by it, which is that intergovernmental relations between the UK and the EU, which were previously more fraught, should be less fraught and more positively aligned. Incidentally, the same approach should be taken between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations in the UK, because those relations had been very bad under the previous UK Government.

When I have met colleagues in Brussels, they have reported that the still relatively new UK Government is definitely taking a different approach in its discussions with the EU. I would attest to the fact that, in the meetings that I have had, it is constantly stressed that we are in different territory and that the UK Government wants to listen. In that respect, it is a case of “So far, so good”.

I do not think that Mr Harvie was on the committee when I shared the insight of people in Brussels, who described the UK Government’s position by referring to the Spice Girls. I am judging from Mr Harvie’s face that he has not heard this before. EU colleagues said that they were not sure what the UK Government really wanted. They were saying, “Tell us what you want, what you really, really want.” That was the chat among everyone at events. They said that it was great that UK Government ministers were having conversations in which they said that the UK Government wanted to get on positively and that it was exploring various areas in which discussions could be held and agreement could be reached, but that there was a lack of clarity about what the UK Government actually wanted.

In fairness, when a new Government comes in, it has to understand where the previous Government got to and where the interlocutors in Brussels, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast are in relation to all that and to work out what the relative priorities are. With regard to the European Union, we have had European Parliament elections, a new Commission and new commissioners taking up their responsibilities, and I think that everyone has chosen to understand that backdrop as the reason why no substantive progress has yet been made on all those things. We have wished that process a fair wind.

I would characterise the conversations that I have had as follows. Colleagues have clearly and repeatedly expressed their views in similar terms. I met my opposite number, Lisa Nandy, who is the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, yesterday, and she started the conversation by saying, “The UK Government is very keen to work with the Scottish Government. Let’s make sure that we can identify ... ”, and so on. That is great, but we are getting to the stage where we need to move beyond terms such as “reset” and atmospherics. What is the UK Government actually going to seek to agree and when? At the same time, we must also bear in mind that a massive black swan has crossed in front of everybody’s considerations in relation to defence and security.

Perhaps that will help everyone to understand—if they did not already realise it—why such areas of potential agreement really matter. It matters that one has good will. There will be different interests in those discussions, and I must hope—it has been reported back to us that this is the case—that the UK Government has taken our positions back. I have said this to the committee before, but I will do so again so that it is on the record. Improving professional mobility; securing EU-UK co-operation and the mutual recognition of professional qualifications; rejoining Erasmus+ and improving youth mobility; removing obstacles for touring artists; and improving migration arrangements to meet Scottish needs. Those things, which I listed in no particular order, are all things that we have asked the UK Government to take seriously.

Thank you very much, convener, and good morning, colleagues. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to the committee on the trade and co-operation agreement and to focus on trade in services and mobility. I welcome the committee’s inquiry. Your previous report on trade and goods made a strong contribution to the debate on the impact of Brexit.

The Scottish Government’s view is well known. The provisions that were made under the TCA represent a huge step backwards when compared with the benefits of European Union membership.

The changed international and UK economic situation demands an urgent change of course from the UK Government. It is becoming clearer by the day that being outside the European Union in the more volatile world leaves the UK and Scotland in an exposed and vulnerable position. This week, we have seen further evidence of the precarious position of the UK economy. In those circumstances, continuing the disastrous UK self-imposed exclusion from the European single market and customs union makes zero sense. There are clear moves towards greater European Union economic autonomy. That means, amid a possible global trade war, that the UK runs the risk of being marooned with no safe harbour. That cannot be in the interests of Scotland.

Within the parameters of the TCA, some limited improvements are still possible. In relation to trade in services, greater worker mobility and mutual recognition of professional qualifications in key sectors would help. The loss of mobility has had a particular impact on touring artists. Rejoining the Erasmus+ programme would make it easier for our young people and students to study in the European Union and enhance their skills and qualifications.

The Scottish Government will continue to press for improvements to arrangements for co-operation with the European Union. To be clear, that means provisions that are much deeper and wider reaching.

From the evidence that you have taken so far, it is clear that the Scottish Government’s priorities coincide in many cases with the priorities of stakeholders in business, education and civil society. In particular, it is critical that we come to a comprehensive and generous mobility agreement as swiftly as possible, and seek to rejoin key European programmes in order to redress harms and restore to our businesses and individuals at least some of what they have lost through Brexit.

To that effect, my ministerial colleagues and I will continue to work with key partners in Scotland on the proposed efforts to improve UK-EU relations. I expect to have a further meeting of the four nations interministerial group on UK-EU relations to press for Scotland’s interests and I have offered to host that in-person meeting in Scotland. I have also recently travelled to Brussels to speak with key European Union partners as the EU continues to embed its new five-year cycle.

I remain committed to working closely with our fellow Europeans for the good of Scotland and for the rest of the UK and the European Union. To that end, I look forward to discussing these issues with you and other matters members might wish to raise.

Thank you very much.

First, I would to say to Mr Kerr that I am keen not to re-write history and misrepresent the facts around fishing. The situation is not as Mr Kerr has presented it. Brexit left the Scottish fishing industry with access to fewer of the important fish stocks than it had under the common fisheries policy; the industry group Salmon Scotland reported that Brexit cost Scotland around £75 million in 2023 in lost salmon exports to the European Union; and leaving the European Union has ended freedom of movement, contributing to an estimated 20 per cent to 25 per cent of vacancies being unfilled throughout the seafood industry.

To quote the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation:

“The fishing industry in Scotland paid a heavy price for the Brexit deal in the first place.”

I could go on to say that the deal was desperately poor—

I am very sympathetic to the point that Mr Harvie makes. It is a matter of basic principle. We pay for the health system through our taxes and I believe that we have an intergenerational responsibility. I would wish that young Scots who are able to live and work and are using a youth mobility scheme in the rest of Europe would not be disadvantaged and that what is true for them would, by necessity, also be true for Europeans.

I have already answered that question and said that we have acted.

Of course.