Chamber and committees

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.

That is what I would wish. I would want to maintain the principle that we believe in access to public healthcare that does not involve paying for it.

I have not seen any correspondence that would support what Mr Bibby is saying. Obviously, such schemes come with a cost implication—of course they do. However, I think that we have to take a step back and look objectively at the strengths and weaknesses of all the schemes that are out there. It is true that we should consider the cost implications of those things.

There is, however, also an intangible benefit that you cannot assess on the basis of cost, which is of value to a generation of young people—both Scottish and wider UK students, as well as European Union students who wish to come here—who have been denied the opportunity of a year abroad or of furthering their studies in other countries. That is at a time when—we have talked about this in passing—we are looking at the situation in Ukraine with the gravest of concern. The Europe in which we all grew up, with certainties around peace and security, is unfortunately over. That is why schemes such as Erasmus+, which bring people together and help to grow understanding and trust between emerging generations of our younger society, are so important. It is another reason why we should be part of a scheme whose scale means that it does much more than Turing or Taith could ever do.

Please do.

I fear that I will not be able to do Mr Harvie’s question justice in the less than one minute that I have left in this evidence session, but I assure him that I and my colleagues are very seized of the matter. The UK Government obviously has an interest in reaching energy agreements about trading, carbon capture and storage, interconnectivity and regulatory alignment to ensure that the energy sector can operate as well as possible, and we are very supportive of that.

I think that Mr Harvie knows this, but one of the things that I spend a lot of my time doing when I meet continental European colleagues—primarily northern European colleagues—is drawing attention to the opportunities that we have as northern European renewable energy-rich countries. Scotland, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark and others are all likely to be energy exporting countries, and we work as closely as possible to make the case to other European countries that we need to work together to deal with regulatory issues, trade-related issues and interconnectivity-related issues.

I am trying to impress on my UK Government colleagues that, when they talk with EU member states and European Union institutions about all of this, they must remember the priorities that Scotland has as a country that will be able to produce green hydrogen, without nuclear being part of our energy set-up, and then export that hydrogen through the European Union’s hydrogen backbone system, which links Ireland and Scotland to the European Union via Scotland. We have to understand—this has not been widely reflected in the Scottish media or in debates in the chamber, as far as I have been able to ascertain—that we are in a really strong position if we can have regulatory alignment and interconnectivity and if we realise that Europe’s moving from gas dependency to hydrogen use is a massive opportunity for us as well as for continental Europe.

Convener, we are in a position to share with you the energy paper that has been developed, which covers a lot of the points that Mr Harvie has raised. We would be happy to forward that to the committee and to respond to any follow-up questions that there might be.

No, there is not a co-decision mechanism in the United Kingdom. Sadly, that is not how the devolution settlement works. That, of course, was the advantage of the European Union. As a member state of the EU, we were formally part of a co-decision process, which also involved directly elected parliamentarians. We do not have that. We have an assurance that the UK Government will listen to the priorities of the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive, and that that will inform the UK’s negotiating position, but there is no formal mechanism whatsoever for decisions to be made jointly.

I do not have numbers next to the points that were raised, but it is clear that an agriculture, food and drink agreement and an SPS agreement would have a significant impact across our economy and would be important for our rural sector and our exports. I happen to think that the UK Government views that as one of the major priorities, although it has never said it like that.

Therefore, we are in a similar position. We are not at the stage of not getting everything that we want. We are not even at the stage of knowing what everybody’s relative priorities are, because we are at the stage of seeking to ascertain what those priorities are. However, I have made it clear that an agriculture, food and drink agreement is very important. Everything else is significant.

I do not see any technical or political reason why all those things are not deliverable. I cannot speak to what the European Union’s position on such matters will be. I know that the EU is very keen on mobility and on young people from the EU and the UK being able to enjoy the benefits of living, working and studying in one another’s countries, and I happen to agree with that. However, it is too early for me to be able to read the runes for Mr Bibby on the relative positions of the UK Government. We have talked about how important all these things are.

It is clear that all issues will bring advantages and disadvantages for different sides in a negotiation, but there are some aspects of this process in relation to which I see no downside whatsoever. Let us take the creative Europe programme, for example. I cannot see any downside to the UK being part of that. Thirteen other states and territories outside the EU are part of creative Europe. In our creative sector, co-operation with other parts of Europe is extremely important. In the screen sector, which is an area that Mr Bibby and I share a commitment to, co-production—working with other commissioning broadcasters and film and TV companies—is important. Anyone you speak to in that world will say, “We absolutely need to be part of creative Europe.” I have not heard a single person, in any context—whether in Scotland or the UK—question that, so, with a bit of luck, some of these things need not be complicated at all.

Other areas are also important. I have not yet mentioned energy. Energy matters greatly because of the geostrategic situation that we find ourselves in. Parts of the European continent are dependent on gas, and countries such as Germany are moving as quickly as they can away from being dependent on gas to hydrogen. They cannot produce enough hydrogen. Who can produce hydrogen? Northern European countries, including Scotland, can. It is really important for the UK Government to understand that issues around energy matter to us as well. However, that is a more complicated issue.

I concede that some things are much easier to deliver than others. On matters on which there are technical questions, the process might take a bit longer. In principle, however, I think that everything that we have said should be a priority from our point of view should be eminently deliverable. I am not in a position to answer on the relative order that the UK Government or, indeed, EU colleagues would give to those matters, but I will be happy to come back later in the process to talk about that.

Yet again—and for the record—I agree with Mr Kerr that the recognition of professional qualifications was a challenge while we were in the European Union and that it remains a challenge now that we are no longer in the European Union. Of course there is self-interest on the part of countries in and around the issue. I agree with Mr Kerr that that is not a reason not to try to make progress. If decisions were made in the past that did not progress recognition and were mistaken, that is no reason not to return to them.

However, we also need to be aware of the internal UK aspect. Because the UK has different legal jurisdictions, as Mr Kerr said, it is a case in point that we have different professional qualifications in the UK. That makes my point, which is that trade is a reserved matter. We are bound by the actions that the United Kingdom Government takes, including the passing of legislation on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, such as the Professional Qualifications Act 2022, which is a UK Parliament act.

Trade policy is reserved, but the 2022 act was passed without the legislative consent of the Scottish ministers. When Mr Kerr brings up examples of where progress has not been made with European Union institutions, I point out that there have been such difficulties in the United Kingdom. I underline that we should take the opportunity, given that we can do so at this moment, to make progress on all such things. If there is cross-party agreement, I very much welcome it.

I know that Scottish professional bodies are closely involved in all of this. The committee has heard from the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, and others are also involved. To the same end, Scottish Government officials are engaging regularly with counterparts in the Department for Business and Trade.