Chamber and committees

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

I am in favour of a public healthcare system that is free at the point of access for anybody who requires it, and I would expect that for young Scottish people anywhere else in Europe. I hope that that answers your question.

Our position has definitely been heard. I know that because the minister in question has acknowledged that the priorities that we and other devolved Governments in the UK share are things on which we have been listened to.

We are all political practitioners so we have to acknowledge that the UK Government is wrestling with how to deal with immigration as an issue and is feeling the political heat from the populist right. I think that that is a significant part of the reason why there is nervousness in the UK Government about anything that might create an impression that the doors are being opened to more people to arrive, if I can put it like that. That is not where the debate about mobility or migration is in Scotland—it is just a different reality. From a Scottish point of view, I see the danger that mobility and migration are simply relegated in importance because of the UK Government’s political position on the issue.

This goes back a little bit to Mr Bibby’s question about different people’s positions in the discussions. I foresee circumstances where a UK Government might say, “We want an agriculture, food and drink agreement, an SPS agreement” and the European Union might say, “That is very interesting. We are not disinterested in doing such a thing but we are very interested in a mobility agreement for young people”. That is an example of where one might see different relative priorities of the European Union and of the UK Government. It just happens to be that on this question, the Scottish Government’s position is more aligned with that of the European Union.

Are we formally part of that trade-off, if I can call it that? No, we are not. Should we be? Absolutely yes, we should. That is what happens in other European countries. Indeed, the electorate here was promised—was it not?—that we would be in the closest position to a federal position, and that is what federal government involves.

Having said that, I am a pragmatist. If I can, I want to encourage UK Government colleagues to understand that youth mobility is a good thing and to realise the damage that has been done by limiting young people’s opportunities and what that is doing in our universities and our schools—the fact that they are now almost totally bereft of language assistants is just one example of the end of the freedom of movement, and it is a thoroughly bad thing. Those things could be remedied through a mobility agreement. I think that the UK Government is trying; if it is going to have to agree to something like that, it wants it to sound more limited, rather than giving the impression of its being too wide.

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.

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.

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?