³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That is a good question. The provision cannot be put in primary legislation; it needs to be in an SSI, in a separate process.

Your question about the time gap is very valid. Clearly, a lot of this has happened during Covid time, when the focus was elsewhere. It is important that we correct that now. When it comes to concerns about the implications of that, I assure you that South of Scotland Enterprise has, in any event, complied in all regards with the requirements, and was set up on that basis. The board and management are very clear about the requirements in the SSIs, which have been baked into their operation right from the start. We have not lost any time in that regard. This is, in effect, a tidying-up exercise, to bring the body into line with the legislation that applies to other enterprise agencies.

Thank you very much, convener and good morning, committee. It is great to be here. I thank the committee for inviting me to discuss the important matter of legislative consent.

The principle of the recognition of professional qualifications is to allow suitably qualified people the chance to work in or trade with other countries. For Scotland, this means getting access to the doctors, vets, nurses and engineers that we need here, who have skills gained in other countries. It also enables our professionals to take up skills-enhancing opportunities abroad, or to export their services to other countries. To put this in context, I point out that doctors, nurses and vets who have qualified in other countries rely on mutual recognition of professional qualifications to be able to work here.

The latest data shows that international exports of professional scientific and technical activities were worth £3.4 billion in 2018, which is 20 per cent of total services and 10 per cent of total international exports. Within the EU, there is a formal system for the recognition of qualifications. That was lost when the UK left the EU. As a responsible Government, the Scottish Government has worked with the UK Government and the Scottish Parliament to amend legislation on mutual recognition of professional skills that was brought into UK law as a result of Brexit.

The bill covers a number of important issues for regulators now that the UK is no longer in the EU. It seeks to provide all professional regulators with the power to enter into agreements with counterparts abroad, as some do not have that power. There are also powers for the UK and devolved ministers to make regulations covering professions over which they can legislate. We know that a variety of UK-wide and devolved regulators have expressed concerns about the terms of the bill as it relates to professional standards; there is a risk that UK ministers might trade away existing high standards to secure free trade agreements. I understand that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has continued to engage with regulators across the UK and I hope that the department will seek to allay those fears about amendments to the bill.

The committee will know that the Scottish ministers felt that they could not recommend granting consent for the bill as it stands. The bill as drafted confers concurrent powers in devolved areas to both UK and Scottish ministers, but without a requirement to seek consent before exercising those powers. In addition, UK ministers could amend or disapply regulations that were legitimately made here and supported by this Parliament.

The issues around consent are relevant to a number of other UK Government bills, so I hope that the UK Government will take proper account of our legitimate concerns in this area. The Scottish ministers have asked UK ministers to amend the bill to include a requirement for consent before acting in devolved areas. If, as we were told, UK ministers do not intend to act without agreement, there is no problem that I can see in amending the bill. I am keen to work constructively with BEIS for as long as Scotland is part of the UK and where there are shared interests, and that includes this bill on mutual recognition of professional qualifications. Thank you.

Yes. Our ask is that the requirement to seek consent in devolved matters be included in the bill.

On the broader issue of international trade, there have been on-going discussions with the UK Government over a lengthy period. We published—two years ago, I think—our perspective on how Scotland, our Government, our Parliament and the other devolved Administrations should be involved in all aspects and at all stages of any potential international trade agreement. That is a long-standing position of ours, which applies equally to professional qualifications.

Your analysis is correct. Our position is that the UK Government, if it has no desire to impinge on those areas, should make that clear by stating that in bill. It is difficult to see why it would not do so. As I said, we are continuing with our discussions, and we hope that it will change its position to reflect that logical position as you have outlined it.

Yes. That is an important point. On the surface, MRPQ does not sound like the most exciting of subjects, but in reality, as I have indicated, on so many levels, that represents an increasing proportion of our trade. MRPQ affects the ability of Scottish professionals to work internationally, which is hugely important for their aspirations and career development, for business, and for, as you rightly said, the movement of professionally trained individuals to support our health and social care sector and a range of other sectors to which that applies. It directly impinges on our ability to respond to situations that arise. For a devolved Government with the responsibility for doing so, it is important that the power remains within the devolved remit.

I am not aware of the specifics of fee levels. I will defer to one of the officials, who might have more information about the detail and any conversations on the specifics of it they might have had with the devolved regulators. I do not know who is best to come in on that.

Yes, I think so. From our perspective, the main issue is the impingement on devolved responsibilities. Issues have been raised by regulators, who also have concerns, but the main issue for us is the devolved aspects. We recognise the asks from the regulators and we are supportive of many of them. We hope that the UK Government will also move forward on those asks, with appropriate amendments.

There is regular on-going engagement at official level. I have spoken with and written to Gerry Grimstone, the relevant UK Government minister about the issue. We are hopeful there will be movement. There is regular discussion about the issue, as there is on many other areas.

I would like to think so, but it will come down to the UK Government reflecting on the situation. There have been issues of this kind, with other bills in which the UK Government has sought to impinge on devolved matters, that have not concluded in the way we would have liked. However, in this case, I am hopeful that the UK Government will recognise the importance of not impinging on devolved areas and will amend the bill accordingly.

They will be having their own separate discussions, but our officials are also engaging regularly with the regulators to understand their concerns about the professional issues that I have mentioned and how the bill impinges on devolved matters.