Chamber and committees

—and the officials who work there speak with the UK mission to the European Union and, as is the way in the way Brussels works, with officials from right across the institutions as a matter of course. That is what all representative offices in Brussels do, and it is through those channels that one often hears about where progress is being made. Is that the optimal way of finding out about progress in negotiations? No, it is not. I am sorry that that was the extent of the information that we had because the UK Government was not sharing information with us.

I am sure that the committee knows this, but much of the agreement that was reached between the United Kingdom Government and the European Union at the summit was at high level and in principle, and the details of that agreement have, in significant part, not yet been agreed. Our understanding—from what we were told by the European Union’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, not by the United Kingdom Government—is that the negotiating mandates for those detailed discussions are hoped to be agreed for the European Union by the summer break. The timetable for the UK’s negotiating mandate is not clear to the Scottish Government; neither is the process by which those negotiations might then take place or the involvement of devolved Administrations, which have significant locus in those issues.

In relation to your question, implementation would follow the detail of an agreement because, otherwise, there is nothing to implement beyond the high-level agreement that there shall be a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and that progress will be made on Erasmus+. The details of those things have not been agreed, but they will be.

Another thing that was pointed out to us from the European Union side—again, rather than from the UK side—is that there will be another UK-EU summit next year. The understanding is that there has been a summit and an agreement this year, that negotiations will begin this year and—one would imagine—significant progress on the detail should be made by next year’s summit. That is the best that I can guess, in significant part because the United Kingdom Government has not made clear to us how it expects matters to progress in detail.

First, to deal with the known knowns, you are absolutely right to point out the context of an SPS agreement—an agrifoods and veterinary agreement—that will have a significant impact in particular on the food and drink sector, which is so important to the Scottish economy. One reason why it is so important to the sector is that, when such an agreement is in place, it will obviate the requirements for a significant part of the border checks that the UK Government has not yet implemented. The last UK Government did not implement those checks—it put things back—and the current UK Government has not yet implemented them. Were it to do so, that would add delays and problems that, as we know, have already caused significant challenge, not least in the agriculture and food sector, in which delays involving live products—shellfish, for example, which is a significant export to the continental European market—are very problematic.

That is one of the big prizes of having what I prefer to call an agriculture and food agreement—the SPS agreement—and why we lobbied the UK Government very hard for there to be one. I cannot imagine that the UK Government would wish to introduce border checks before such an agreement were reached, for the reasons that I have outlined. I have had no information about what plans the UK Government has on the timing, sequencing or treatment of that issue, but perhaps Mr Graham, who is sitting next to me, will have something to update the committee on.

The UK Government and the Scottish Government are aware because it is custom and practice for civil servants to constantly speak to one another in the United Kingdom and with European Union contacts. That is how diplomatic relations work.

The Scottish Government does use public money in support of the defence sector, which is a very important part of our economy. We know that there is a live debate about how one ensures that there is an ethical dimension to all that. There is a challenge involved in that, which I am sure that Mr Bibby would recognise.

I am sure that he and I would agree that it is important and necessary that we are able to help one another in a European context and support neighbours in need, such as Ukraine. However, at present, we have a challenge to ensure that the UK Government listens to our views on issues such as our calling for the United Kingdom to end all weapons supplies to Israel, and that we have systems in place to ensure that that actually happens.

In relation to the European Union, it is of significant interest to us that the UK and its defence sector are a part of that wider process. We all realise that having a multitude of weapons systems, calibres and standards across our different armed forces—when we are, sadly, seeing a common threat in Europe—is part of a wider reason why we need to ensure that we co-operate. The Scottish Government is supportive of that and of having a defence sector here.

Other European Union countries are investing significantly in defence—Germany, for example, has announced €500 billion in additional defence spending, which I am sure will not all be spent in Germany—and I very much hope that Scotland will play its part, as will everywhere else in Europe, in relation to the marshalling of resources in a European Union context.

Absolutely. What we are talking about in relation to the EU-UK deal is what is on the margins of improving relations with the European Union. Yes, an SPS agreement would be a really good thing—of course it would. Yes, being part of the Erasmus scheme again would be a good thing, as would having closer energy co-operation—we have not had time to get on to that subject this morning, but, given how important our energy sector is, surely such co-operation would make a lot of sense to everybody. Those are the areas in which the European Union is prepared to have improved relations, but that is far short of being a member state.

If one could have all the advantages of being in the European Union without having to deliver on the acquis communautaire and be part of the processes of being a member state, the European Union would not function. Everybody would cherry pick what they wanted and ignore the things that they did not want. That is not how the European Union works. Although it is right for the UK Government to seek the best possible reset of arrangements and the best possible agreement that can be reached—on defence and security, as well as on the wide range of other issues that we have talked about—that is not the same as being a member state. It is important to be reminded that that is the case, and Mr Adam is absolutely right to highlight it.

That is my point, Mr Kerr. Do we want to do government by newspaper leaks?

If Mr Graham could give a bit of detail, that might be helpful.

I think that that is a known unknown at the moment, Mr Kerr, to answer your entirely reasonable question. I will just say that I think that it is in everybody’s interest to make progress on all of these things as quickly as we can. The threat to us all in Europe is very real. The requirement to have everything at the disposal of our armed forces so they can do the job that they must do is a priority for everybody. Similarly, it matters for our economy and for all the other areas of the potential agreement that these things proceed at pace.

However, I do not think that there is clarity yet as to whether there will be a different delivery date—if you want to call it that—for what Mr Kerr quite rightly points out are three distinct parts of what emerged from the UK-EU summit. As soon as we have any clarity on that, I will be content to share that with the committee.

That has been agreed with the United Kingdom.