Chamber and committees

I thank the clerks and the convener of the committee for the report. I know the work that the conveners had to do to make sure that we got a report that has been commended by everybody. Bringing together a consensus is not easy on the committee sometimes.

Before Brexit, Scotland enjoyed a frictionless trading relationship with the EU, thanks to our membership of the single market and the customs union. It was a system that allowed our businesses to thrive, from our iconic salmon and seafood industries to our small and medium enterprises, which could access European markets with ease. However, today, as the committee’s report highlights, that reality has dramatically changed. The UK trade and co-operation agreement, while boasting of being tariff free and quota free, is far from frictionless.

The evidence that is presented in the report makes it clear that non-tariff barriers are strangling Scottish exports, especially for our smaller businesses. One of the witnesses the committee heard from, who was from Northern Ireland, said:

“The UK is ... becoming one of the most expensive places in the world ... to do business.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 2 May 2024; c 13.]

Another witness said that it was easier to export to Russia or North Korea than to the EU.

Those are damning statements on the impact of Brexit. For example, for the seafood industry, which relies on the EU for more than 70 per cent of its exports, Brexit has been a significant blow. Salmon Scotland has reported a loss in export value to the EU of up to £100 million since 2019. That is not just about numbers and money but about the livelihoods of thousands of Scottish families who depend on those industries.

Incidentally, one of the vaunted benefits was that we would get a grip of immigration. Today, it has been published that the UK has the highest immigration rate in the whole of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Obviously, that never worked for those who wanted that.

The Federation of Small Businesses has shown that Europe remains the largest market for UK SMEs, yet those are the very businesses that are being hit by the added costs and the regulatory burdens that are imposed by the TCA.

The report also emphasises the growing regulatory divergence between the UK and the EU. I say to whoever mentioned that point earlier that there was no way that we—even the House of Lords, which did most of the work—were ever able to monitor convergence, and there is no way that we can properly, in my view, monitor divergence. It is so expansive and it happens all the time.

The Independent Commission on UK-EU Relations has warned that further divergence could hamper trade not only with the EU but with other global markets that recognise EU standards. We are committed to aligning with the EU wherever possible, but our powers to do so are limited by Westminster.

I think that the efforts of the Prime Minister in relation to some of the security work that is going on now are commendable, and he should go further. That work is very important, but it also shows what we lost—in the EU, we could work not only with France and Germany but with defence partners across the board.

The seed potato industry has been mentioned. Britain used to export 30,000 tonnes of seed potatoes to the EU, valued at £13.5 million, but that market was closed overnight. The NFUS—

I think that a lot of economists would not agree with a structurally imposed lack of reciprocity, if I can put it that way.

My other question is about the comments that Dr Anderson made on the achievements of the faculty and the Law Society in getting agreements with other countries when they want to be involved in work in those countries. In my view, Brexit has been a complete disaster, to be honest. Professor Collins talked about our being slightly above GATS or WTO level, which is a disaster for the economy, and we are seeing that in the lost billions.

However, it is now some time since Brexit happened—although it is not so much time since the agreement happened—but surely it should be possible for many agreements to be made more quickly. I know that such things tend not to move very fast. I suppose that what I am interested in—as most politicians would be—is accountability. I am probably asking the wrong people here, but who should we be looking to for accountability for the lack of progress? Is there an extent to which organisations could do more to get the recognition that they are looking for, or is it structurally very difficult to do that without member-state involvement? In my experience, because of the system that we have in Scotland and the UK, many organisations wait for the Government to move on lots of things. Is it not possible for organisations to do more in the meantime, or is that structurally difficult or a resource question?

I have a fairly quick question to which the answer is probably obvious and is something that I should probably know. It goes back to Stephen Kerr’s second question, which was about reciprocity. Obviously, Brexit has been a complete mess on the goods side, as UK suppliers have had restrictions imposed, but for various reasons to do with infrastructure and so on, the same restrictions have not been imposed on EU goods coming into the country. Is reciprocity in relation to services, as it affects your organisations, being pretty well observed, or is there a sense in which the situation is one sided? In areas in which you are restricted from going into the EU, is that being observed in relation to EU representatives coming to this country, in your experience?

I will come back on that point.

You mentioned the Indian MOU. I know that there is no trade agreement with India even yet, but is that MOU active and producing benefits now? If it is, it shows that we can do these things outwith trade agreements.

Dr Marks, do you want to add anything?

Do you have anything to add, Professor Collins?

Our route for students was the stagiaire system, which was very successful and was used by many students to get real experience in Brussels. They got virtually no salary, but it was very useful. Of course, because we are no longer a member of the EU, we can no longer use those opportunities. I am just pointing that out.

Professor Collins, at some distance, you may be more able to point a finger of accountability. Could more be done by non-governmental service bodies to advance their interests, or does that have to wait for revision of the trade agreement? Once that is done, of course, that will be it for another few years. Is there more of a role for organisations themselves to get involved in order to achieve what they want to achieve, without Governments necessarily being involved?

—especially for those who are losing their winter fuel allowance—[Interruption.]

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has undertaken of the impact of the UK Government budget on Scotland. (S6F-03477)