Scottish Government’s China Plan
I welcome to the committee the Minister for Culture and External Affairs. She is accompanied by Heather Jones.
Before we start our questions on the China plan, minister, I think that officials have alerted you to the fact that the committee understands from the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland that £4 million of the £9 million that has been allocated to international development remains unallocated in the proposed 2011-12 budget. NIDOS asked us to clarify that with you, and as you are here today we thought that we would ask whether you have plans in place to ensure that the full international development fund for 2011-12 is spent. Are you able to do that?
Fiona Hyslop (Minister for Culture and External Affairs)
The answer is yes, but I am sure that you want a bit more information. Obviously, it is subject to the Scottish Parliament’s deliberations on the budget, which we hope that the committee will support, particularly as we have maintained the £9 million for international development. Any risk to the Scottish budget would put in jeopardy the funding that you have just identified.
Regarding allocations, the Malawi development programme for 2011-12 has already been allocated more than £3 million. Previously, the committee expressed concern about whether we are ensuring that we maintain Malawi funding. In fact, as I have indicated, under our stewardship the funding has exceeded the figure of £3 million by a considerable amount.
Our international development funding activity tends to begin in the summer, but applications must be made. I reassure the committee that NIDOS and all the different organisations that are involved were given notice last week that the application procedure is open. I know from experience that officials stand ready to ensure that the applications are turned round quickly. There are some concerns because we are coming to the end of the current parliamentary session and the spending review period. The 2011-12 budget cycle begins in April, but that is not necessarily when the international development programme spend or allocation takes place—that tends to be a summer cycle.
The outstanding total funds that are still to be allocated for the 2011-12 cycle amount to £3,855,000. Invitations and guidance were issued last week to the relevant organisations to ensure that allocation can progress. With regard to the grant applications for NIDOS and the Scotland Malawi Partnership, I know that there are some concerns because the cycle is April to April, so both organisations have been reassured that the cycle will continue. Obviously, however—as with any of this—it is subject to the Scottish Parliament’s budget deliberations.
I hope that that is helpful.
Thank you for clarifying that point.
Convener, may I ask a supplementary on that?
Yes, of course.
The minister has heard me speak on this subject before, but I will make one last attempt at clarification.
As we have discussed in recent meetings on the international development budget, you have for some reason decided not to state categorically that a sum will be allocated to Malawi in the forthcoming year. You have stressed to us over and over again that that does not mean that this Government is reducing its spending, but you have still shied away from actually putting it in the budget.
I put a proposition to you. In the totally hypothetical event that a different Government were to come in after May 5—who knows which Government, if any, might come in?—would not it be better that the figure was there in writing, so that the new Government would at least know that this Government had fastened its colours firmly to the mast?
I know that you cannot necessarily tie any future Government to what you were planning to do, but would not it be valuable to put the figure in writing, simply to encourage a possible future Government to stick to it?
The Scottish National Party has reaffirmed in the international plan that there is a minimum of £3 million to be spent in Malawi. We have spent £4.5 million in one year, which is half of the international fund at present. I am delighted that Ted Brocklebank has such faith in the SNP Government. We have been very enthusiastic about our funding for Malawi, which has been far in excess of the funding under the previous Administration.
If you trust the SNP, but do not have that much faith in the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, the committee may put forward the argument that you might want to put something in the budget bill.
But the figure has been in previous budgets—why not this time?
We will be judged by our actions, and we have far exceeded £3 million—indeed, we have spent £4.5 million. That quite clearly gives people confidence in the SNP and our investment in Malawi. I think from what you are saying that you have doubts about the commitment of the other parties, which is why you want the figure to be set out in an amendment to the budget bill. As I indicated in my answer to a question from the convener, I can reassure you on that. I can now say that £3,024,916 has been allocated to Malawi in the financial review for 2011-12. Having already allocated the funding, we have confidence that the £3 million figure has already been met by the SNP Government. If you have doubt about the commitment of other parties, it is open to any political party to lodge an amendment to the bill.
11:30
We will await an amendment from Ted Brocklebank.
I turn to the China plan. As members are aware, the committee conducted an inquiry into the plan and reported to the Parliament in October 2009. This session is a follow-up and I hope that it will provide a stocktaking exercise on Government progress in engaging with China. At a time when Sino-Scottish relationships seem to be developing, it is also pertinent. I am sure that the committee will join me in welcoming the trading agreements that coincided with Vice-Premier Li Keqiang’s recent visit to Scotland.
I understand that the minister will not make an opening statement, so we will move straight to questions. We received the Scottish Government’s response to our committee report in January 2010. Will you update us on the work that the Government has done on the China plan since then?
Most of the activity is to reinforce and deliver on the China plan, including the reinforcement of relationships in the partnerships that we are developing. The First Minister’s visit in July and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning’s visit in October reinforced the strength of our activity, as did the very welcome and successful recent visit of Vice-Premier Li, along with six of his ministers.
For example, the geographical indication registration that ensures access to China markets for Scotch whisky has been welcomed. The First Minister raised the issue in his 2009 visit and there has been a great deal of activity with UK counterparts in trying to ensure that we achieve that. As I said, the outcome of that activity, which has been on-going for many years, was very much welcomed. The access to China markets for Scottish salmon has also been welcomed. Much of the activity is on such practical trading issues.
I turn to other development issues. For example, I am pleased that 2010 saw further development between Oban-based GlycoMar and AsiaPharm. Interestingly, I oversaw the sign-off agreement on a visit to China in 2008. The development has extended to include the University of Edinburgh and China’s Ministry of Health. A number of such activities are involved. We are using the plan to reinforce different levels of activity.
I have said previously that many of the education targets are well embedded and supported, as is activity in that area. I can now report the same in terms of activity on trade. The recent announcements put effect to that. I think that we are all very pleased that Edinburgh zoo has been given the gift and loan of the pandas. That is very welcome. Indeed, Vice-Premier Li made it clear that this is part of relationship building in the relationship and friendship that the people of China have with the people of Scotland.
The plan has seven headline objectives. The most recent data are for 2006-07. Can you update us on progress on those objectives and say whether up-to-date information is available?
The intention is to conduct a full assessment of progress on each and every one of those. The activity around that is happening at the moment. The Government’s analytical services and China team are in the process of producing a report on outcomes. The four-year plan ends in May 2011. At that point, you will get the full report.
I think that the convener is interested in the headline figures on progress to date. I will give such information as I can; other information will follow on from the assessment and research. On Chinese language learning and learning about China in Scottish schools, I can report that 240 pupils were presented for Chinese exams in 2010. In 2006, no pupils were presented. I know that an issue is encouraging a faster pace, but that depends on teachers, too, which is one reason why we are trying to encourage Chinese students to come to Scotland. The fact that we now have higher and advanced higher Mandarin examinations is a great step forward and represents progress.
Developments have taken place on Confucius institutes. When Michael Russell discussed education with the Chinese, he talked about the work of the Confucius institute to support and promote Chinese teaching in schools and the interest in parts of Scotland in developing Confucius institutes.
That is the headline for objective 1 on education. Is that helpful? I can go through all the objectives, but I do not know how the convener wants to handle the questioning. Will that be done by section?
I have a list of members who want to ask questions. Does anyone want to ask about the targets that the minister has mentioned or are all the questions on new subjects?
I am curious about the two ministers’ visits, which had much publicity. You mentioned one issue that was discussed—the Confuscus—I knew that I should not have tried to pronounce that word in a committee meeting. You referred to the institutes. What other hard benefits have come out of ministerial visits?
Anybody who has worked with China knows that a lot relates to relationships that are built over time. The whisky example that I gave will make a huge difference to Scotland’s economy and will have an impact on jobs in relation to one of our key exports. The First Minister first discussed that with the relevant Chinese ministry in 2009 and the issue was followed up on his visit in 2010. Other people—not least the Scotch Whisky Association—have been involved, too. The way in which relations with the Chinese Government work is that, when we want to make progress on education, trade or other matters, a strong value is placed on ministerial contact and support.
Imports of live breeding pigs were addressed on visits—that is an important aspect for us to progress. Scottish Development International and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry were involved in several trade missions as part of the First Minister’s visit.
The joint venture by PetroChina and INEOS is important. Grangemouth is not in my constituency, but a number of my constituents work there. Securing 2,000 jobs in that part of the country is important. Anybody who knows the history of Grangemouth knows that concerns have been felt about the future of the plant there at different periods. That venture was the result of the First Minister’s visit to China.
On Michael Russell’s visit, discussion took place on the commitment to develop more Confucius institutes and on university-to-university contacts, which are important. The saltire scholarships offer 50 places for Chinese students. We are developing such scholarships for key areas of life sciences, renewable energy and important industries of the future. The aim is not just to increase the volume of Chinese students who come to Scotland but to ensure collaboration between the brightest and best of both countries.
A key part of Vice-Premier Li’s visit was going to Pelamis Wave Power in Leith, with which the University of Edinburgh is working closely on tidal power. He saw an impressive demonstration of Scotland’s capabilities. It is interesting that much of the science and engineering that is involved in that activity builds on our existing transferable strengths and technologies in oil and gas. Interest has been shown in how we can use our expertise in oil and gas to work on renewable energy. There are practical examples of that.
The First Minister reached agreement with the Chinese culture minister to develop a memorandum of understanding on culture.
In the week when I visited China in 2009, health reforms were announced there. That presents great opportunities. As the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon will engage in the memorandum of understanding between the UK and China on health reform opportunities.
The developments are probably too numerous to mention them all; I am sure that we can follow up any particular issues in writing. The work is about having a common understanding, friendship and partnership, but it also has a result in industry opportunity. The export opportunity for the whisky industry alone is huge, but whether the industry is food and drink or a key sector for the future, the opportunities are strong.
There are also opportunities in culture. One important element of our cultural relationship with China is the fantastic opportunity that is presented by the 2011 Edinburgh festivals, which will have a big Asia focus; the National Ballet of China is coming. We are operating on different strands, many of which are reflected in the China plan. However, if we look at the relationship’s rate of progress and achievements under the China plan, it is fair to say that there is far more movement on trade and industry, for example, than I would have been able to report to the committee this time last year, when education was probably the strongest area.
The opportunities are too numerous to mention, but it must be said that you have made a good effort to do so.
I turn from the Confucius institutes to the issue of renewable energy. I understand that the partnership in Shandong concentrates mainly on education. Given that China is aware of the damage that climate change may do to its environment, and given that it has a constant and growing demand for energy, should we not look at putting more effort into building our renewable collaboration with China?
Absolutely. The presentation that was given to Vice-Premier Li at Victoria Quay focused on explaining the range of activity that the Scottish Government is undertaking on climate change and renewable energy. It was followed up by a visit to the Pelamis plant. One area in which China is particularly interested is carbon capture. When I visited China in 2008, Professor Tim O’Shea, the principal of Edinburgh University, was part of our delegation. During that visit I met the Chinese science minister, who was interested in what we were doing on renewable energy and on carbon capture, in particular. Tim O’Shea kindly offered to ensure that Professor Haszeldine, an expert on many renewables issues, was at hand to explain some of the activity that is under way in Scotland when the science minister visited Heriot-Watt University two or three weeks later.
We are conscious of the fact that much of our influence and capability relates to the climate change issue. In 2008, I visited Jinan in Shandong. The town is known for its springs, which could provide energy as well as water, so there is obviously interest in that issue. In our collaboration with China, we are interested not just in the support that we can get for jobs, such as those at INEOS in Grangemouth, but in the technology that we can offer. It is still early days, but one of the things that will have made the biggest impression on last week’s Chinese delegation is the briefing that it received on renewable energy and its visit to Pelamis. We would like to work with the Chinese Government in relation to our expertise. Climate change is a big challenge, so the more that we can influence China’s activity on the issue, the better. There is particularly keen interest in carbon capture.
I have a follow-up question to counterbalance slightly Bill Wilson’s cheerleader activities on behalf of the Government. Today you have said that the investment at Grangemouth was to secure the 2,000 jobs that are there; the First Minister has used the same phrase. Can you explain that to me? Why we are seeking to secure those jobs at a time when oil prices are almost at an all-time high? I can see strategic reasons for having a Chinese partner at Grangemouth. However, given that the plant has never been doing better business economically, why does that have anything to do with securing jobs there?
I am not saying that there is an overall threat, but anyone who knows the area and the industry over decades will know that there have been different pressures at different times. Joint ventures, with joint investments for the future that allow cutting-edge technology to be exploited both here and elsewhere, are good news. Direct inward investment is important for any business.
We need to see the issue in overall terms. The area in which Grangemouth works—petrochemicals—is important strategically, but the plant is also a major employer in the area. I know at first hand that, even during the lifetime of this Government, there have been concerns about the future for employment purposes. At the end of the day, we are dealing with people’s jobs. The location of 2,000 jobs in Grangemouth has a massive impact on the economy both in Falkirk and more widely. Grangemouth has a national strategic role and an international strategic energy role, but we should not forget that it has the basic role of providing bread-and-butter income for families in homes across central Scotland. That should not be underestimated.
11:45
No. It is just that the terminology that was used slightly surprised me, given that the refinery is Scotland’s only one and that there are boom conditions in the industry at the moment. I can think of all kinds of reasons why the Chinese might want to buy into the technology at Grangemouth, but that has nothing to do with protecting the 2,000 jobs there.
Perhaps I should invite you or arrange a visit to—
I have been to Grangemouth many times.
We are trying to emphasise the importance of Grangemouth to the local economy from a domestic point of view. However, your points about its strategic importance are well made.
On a completely different subject, you mentioned in your response to the committee’s report that you are actively promoting direct flights between Scotland and China. What work has been done on that? Are there any fruits of that labour?
Members should bear with me, as Vice-Premier Li’s visit was only last week, and many of the discussions were private. However, it is clear that that is a major issue for us, and we are pleased that we will be taking forward discussions in that area. You are right to identify that direct flights can make a big difference in trade and investment and people-to-people relationships. I cannot give you further details on the matter at this stage, but I hope to be able to report to the committee in the future on the progress that has been made in such areas. That is certainly a key area in which there are active discussions.
So work is in progress.
Yes.
I presume that you will also have to work with the UK Department for Transport on the matter. Is that already happening or is it still to happen?
That will undoubtedly happen. It is important to stress that, in our relationships with the Chinese Government, we have to work closely with UK Government departments. I am sure that the committee will be reassured by that. Education provides a recent example. We contributed to the Sino-UK education summit as well. We worked closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the most recent visit, and we work in bilateral relationships with each of the departments, including the Department for Transport. It is clear that we will work with that department.
I will ensure that when we have any progress that we can proactively report to the committee, we will do that, but I do not want to jeopardise discussions that might be taking place. Vice-Premier Li’s visit took place only recently, but I will ask my colleagues to update the committee on any progress on transport.
I look forward to some progress.
Ted Brocklebank wants to come in on a separate subject.
I return to the momentum that seems to be building in our relations with China. Putting a small quibble aside, I was gratified to see all that came out of the visit the other week. We are going in the right direction, but it is strangely surprising, given that momentum, that the Government has decided to cut China and India funding in this year’s draft budget while increasing North America funding. Does that not endanger the momentum that you seem to be building up?
I have just received a note from an official that relates to Jim Hume’s question—obviously, things are moving quite quickly. The visit was only last week, but I understand that officials will meet UK Department for Transport officials this Friday. That may be helpful.
On Ted Brocklebank’s question about spend, we must remember that not all the Scottish Government money that is spent on a country comes from my budget. You are looking at the spend from the budget of the office of the First Minister and where we are with that. With respect to China, there is a great deal of activity on educational aspects, for example. I know from the committee’s inquiry into international spend that one of the reports that it received was critical of the Scottish Qualifications Authority and its international spend. The SQA spends a great deal because there has been a huge increase in the number of Chinese students who are taking SQA qualifications. That budget will not appear under my portfolio spend; it is part of the SQA’s education spend. The same applies to issues to do with higher education and trade. Spend on business activity, for example, will not come from my budget, which will tend to be for ministerial visits. There are regular visits. There have been two ministerial visits this year, although there tends to be only one a year. Members will know that parliamentary time constraints restrict when we can go. There tends to be Government-to-Government activity, which probably does not cost as much. North American activity tends to be organised through the North America office.
There has been interest from the committee in what we are doing in Canada. We have just implemented a Canada plan. We did not think that it would be sensible to reduce our spend in North America at a time when we are asking for more input—and in another country as well—so that is why there is a differential. However, I reassure you that I do not feel constrained in our activity in China because of a lack of spend. A lot of the activity tends to be more diplomatic and political, and you will understand that the pace of diplomatic and political activity is more constrained in our relationship with China than in our relationship with North America, where there is perhaps more locus to undertake initiatives in-country on our own. Those relationships are, understandably, different because of the political circumstances. I hope that that gives you some reassurance.
Although today’s session is specifically about China, the same issues arise with India, which is the next major economy that is roaring up. We are spending more in North America than we seem to have allocated to either China or India.
India is very much a developing area for us. As I explained when I gave evidence on the overall international development plan, each country is at different stages and our international activity is more sophisticated and more embedded in the United States. It was started by the previous Administration and our involvement with China came after that and our involvement with India, on a nation-to-nation basis, has come after that. Our involvement with those countries is therefore at different stages. The challenge for us is in making sure that the distribution is fair as we aim to maximise the impact of future budgets on all the areas. The committee will have an important role in ensuring that we do that.
You are right to ask that question. A lot of our spend in India will come in trade and industry and in education, and the challenge for the Government and the Parliament will come once we are operating at full capacity. I do not think that we are doing that yet in all the areas. Everybody realises that there is more to be done and that we are at an earlier stage in some relationships than we are in others.
The minister will recall that, in our comments on the China plan, the committee was especially keen to emphasise that human rights issues should be raised with China. You responded by saying that that would be done sensitively and where appropriate. Was there an opportunity to discuss those issues with Vice-Premier Li Keqiang when he was here a week or two back?
You will understand that I am unable to reflect on conversations that were held privately. The Government has made it clear that we will take any opportunity that we can to make our views known. Indeed, in a speech that the First Minister made at a dinner in the castle that was given to mark Vice-Premier Li’s visit, he talked about the importance of there being a moral aspect to free market development of the economy. The First Minister referred to the fact that Premier Wen Jiabao is renowned for carrying a copy of “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” by Adam Smith and quoted from a lecture that Jiabao gave at the University of Cambridge, in which he stated:
“Adam Smith, known as the father of modern economics, held the view in The Theory of Moral Sentiments that if the fruits of a society’s economic development cannot be shared by all, it is morally unsound and risky, as it is bound to jeopardise social stability ... Within the body of every businessman should flow the blood of morality.”
Within the friendship between our countries, there is an opportunity to emphasise the importance of the free market economy going hand in hand with recognition of that view, which should be shared by all.
I reassure the committee that human rights are an issue of which we are very conscious. I note the committee’s interest in the issue and assure you that it has been raised.
I stress that the committee’s interest is not just in sharing the fruits of economic growth but in ensuring that there are political and democratic freedoms in countries with which we do business. Those issues must also be raised. I wondered whether there was an opportunity to raise them in the wider context.
It is the wider context—that you cannot have one without the other. If the message that China is giving to the world more generally is the importance of opening up and having more of a free market approach to many things—that therefore you cannot have one without the other—we can also argue that you can have political freedoms without economic growth. That is a philosophical approach that you can take. Quite clearly, though, when we are trying to influence people on the basis of the relationship that we have with them, we need to use the tools at our disposal. Because of the interest of the Chinese leadership in Adam Smith and his work, that is an important way of articulating a broader issue to do with political rights, freedoms and democracies in a context that is part and parcel of the conversation that we are having with them.
I well understand the need to be sensitive and to raise these issues when the opportunity arises, and I fully appreciate why the minister and the First Minister would choose to emphasise an area in which the Vice-Premier himself has an interest and on which he has been quoted. However, I emphasise that the committee was not saying that the issue is just about free market growth and the need for a country to be moral in its business trading. It was also meant to be a much broader statement about human rights more generally in China, which goes beyond the bounds of trade and development.
I very much appreciate that and I reassure the committee that I have done that personally with Chinese ministers.
I echo Patricia Ferguson’s point about human rights and ethical trading with countries, and I thank the minister for her reply. I have spoken to her about that on many occasions, as have others on the committee. I hope that, in years to come, even the European Union, which I think is one of China’s biggest trading partners, will have more ethical ways of trading. If, as in the case of China, we can emphasise the issue to the EU, I would be more than happy.
I agree with what the convener said about the success of Vice-Premier Li’s visit to Scotland—it brought success to businesses, too.
Ted Brocklebank’s comments about Grangemouth illustrate why we will never have a Conservative Government in Scotland.
I am not pandering to the Scottish Government, but we must give credit where credit is due and congratulate the Government on an extremely successful visit from Vice-Premier Li. Has the minister had any thoughts about whether anything more can come from the visit—more breeding pandas perhaps? I will leave it to the minister to let us know about that. Does she see anything else relating to trade and employment coming from Li’s visit?
I was going to ask about air routes, but they have been covered by Jim Hume.
Tourism, and the issue of how we sell ourselves to other countries, especially China, is a big issue in Scotland. In the committee’s report on the Scottish Government’s China plan, we suggested that VisitScotland develop a China toolkit for tourism. The minister agreed with that. How successful has VisitScotland been in that regard? What role has the Scottish Government played in the toolkit? Is that up and running?
There are a number of issues there. Further actions will result from Vice-Premier Li’s visit. It was only a week ago, but officials will be meeting the Department for Transport on Friday, and the Chinese embassy, to follow up on a number of actions that we agreed. It is not a reflection on the China plan as is, but it comes back to the point that we are at now, which is about how we can reinforce activity to support the China plan.
In terms of where we go ahead, new areas include health—the health reforms are very interesting, and there are opportunities there. We have done some work on life sciences in the past but less on health generally. In terms of rural development, renewable energy has already been mentioned. There is also tourism and golf. In fact, on his visit to China, the First Minister launched with the tour operator China Holidays its first dedicated Scottish golf brochure. I can give the committee some figures in that respect. In 2005, there were 7,000 visitors from China and, over the past three years, that has increased to 11,000. Obviously, there is still more room for movement in the market, but it shows that there has been some improvement and the publication of the brochure is a major move in that respect. The toolkit has been very much welcomed and is being used and VisitScotland has indicated that it is proving successful in providing support.
12:00
Other areas in which we are looking for greater Chinese investment include air links, which we have discussed, and seed potatoes, which are a very practical area of expertise in which we think we can undertake work. I have already mentioned cultural exchanges; we hope that the Chinese minister for culture will be able to attend the international festival. The invitation has certainly been made, but we have not yet received any confirmation.
We are also looking at more development in Tianjin. Standard Life, the University of Dundee and the University of Glasgow are all carrying out activity in the region and we are growing and improving our links there. We also want to refresh our links with Hong Kong, which we have visited twice, and certainly think that there is more to be made of that relationship. Finally, as I have mentioned, we are looking at whether we can increase support for the Confucius network.
I hope that I have managed to give the committee an overview of the areas that we are moving forward in. Obviously, more will come out of the recent visit, although I should remind the committee that it took place only nine days ago and that a lot needs to be pursued in that respect. However, we are pursuing the various action points very rigorously and I am sure that there will be more to report to the Parliament and the committee.
With regard to tourism and encouraging and making it easier for Chinese visitors to come to Scotland, it is unfortunate that we do not have direct air links, although the fact that the issue is being considered is itself great progress. However, we also have to think about the issue of passports and legislation that is about to be introduced in Scotland. Have you spoken to the UK Government about making it easier for Chinese visitors on packages to come straight to Scotland instead of having to drop off at Heathrow and spend a couple of days in London first?
All that will depend on air links, which we are continuing to address. The kind of visits that you have mentioned are an on-going issue, but we will not necessarily know about any difficulties unless the industry tells us about them. The situation is easier for people who are, say, booking a visa for a foreign holiday; the issues that have been raised with us, particularly by local authorities, relate more to people coming to Scotland as language assistants. We have the Chinese Government’s support in pursuing such matters with the Home Office, but that is the only difficulty that has emerged over the past year. The number of people who are affected is not large, but the issue is very important to the councils involved.
I was indeed looking to raise the issue of the accreditation of Chinese visitors coming to Scotland. You said that you are pursuing the matter with the Home Office; obviously, the difficulty is on the China side and I wondered whether you would raise the issue with the Premier or Vice-Premier.
That was not an area for discussion, although we have discussed the matter with the Chinese embassy and the Home Office. As I have said, the number of people who are affected is not large. If members know from their own areas or experience of any difficulties that have arisen, it would be helpful if they would let us know about them to allow us to see whether any pattern is emerging.
At a previous meeting, I asked about the Scottish Chinese community’s involvement with the China plan and relations with China. I know, for example, that Scottish Development International is engaging with small and medium-sized enterprises in an attempt to link the Scottish Chinese community into its own work. However, for a number of reasons, Chinese communities outside China frequently end up being ghettoised. Although that situation is not particularly bad in Scotland, it means that those communities find themselves separated out from everyone else, and it is important that in developing trade and, in particular, cultural links we bring our Scottish Chinese community on board and ensure that it is involved as much as possible. Did the Scottish Chinese community have any opportunity to be involved in the visit, or was it not really about that level of engagement?
There are a number of issues. You are right about our international development work in different countries. The India and Pakistan plans are good examples of where we need to work harder on how we work with the populations in Scotland that have relationships in those countries. We seek to make more progress on that. I recently had discussions with the Pakistan consul about those issues. The same could apply to China, India and other areas.
Visits tend to happen quite quickly and, although we used the short time available to great effect, there was no opportunity to involve the Scottish Government with the Chinese community. However, I was pleased to hear from our Chinese visitors that during their short stay in Scotland they had the opportunity to meet some Chinese students who are studying in Scotland, and that was welcome.
There is an issue about how we deal with the Chinese diaspora—or the Indian and Pakistani diasporas—in Scotland as part of our international development work. I would like to reflect on that more. As I have indicated, we can do more in the business area, but how we support people who live here is also important. We had a good debate in Parliament last week about the Irish diaspora, but you are also right about the Chinese community. I know from my constituency work and my work in education and learning that in terms of outreach and community learning and development we have to approach different communities in particular ways. I know that Edinburgh works hard with the Chinese community on access, particularly for older members of the Chinese community, so that they are served as well as they can be in areas such as health.
We need to reflect on whether our country plans mean that we have a one-way relationship with the countries, and perhaps on how we can help to support what is happening within Scotland with the diaspora communities. For example, Glasgow City Council does a great deal of work with the Chinese community. The issue is whether there is a role for the Scottish Government or whether issues are best dealt with by the local authority, which knows its area better. How we behave towards and support people from other countries who are living in this country sends a strong signal to those countries and reflects the value that we place on our relationship with them. It cannot be overestimated. It is easy to talk about the economic and monetary value of trade and industry contracts, but Bill Kidd makes the important point that the social value of our behaviour towards people is just as important. If Scotland wants to be known as somewhere that gives people a warm welcome, we have to be aware of how we treat people who live here.
That is a valid point, and the minister has addressed it constructively. However, when we undertook our inquiry, we had some informal meetings with members of the Chinese community in Scotland, and they were quite vociferous in saying that there was a lack of engagement on the China plan. You are right to say that it is worth reflecting on that and working out how we can move forward.
Yes, I will do that.
There is a question on mentoring that we should ask. The committee has heard that businesses that are working in China would be happy to provide advice and guidance to smaller businesses, and SDI responded positively to the suggestion of a mentoring scheme, which would be rather more comprehensive than the globalscot network. Has the Government or SDI undertaken any further work on setting up a mentoring scheme for small and medium-sized businesses?
I cannot answer that directly, but I will find out and write to the committee. There is an issue about knowledge of the country. From meetings that I have attended about, for example, the drinks industry, I know that sometimes it is about people with expertise in particular lines of business—the food industry, the drinks industry or other industries—mentoring people with similar experiences in the sector. I am happy to come back to the committee on that. Obviously, SDI is more familiar with that issue.
We have finished our questioning. Thank you for coming along today. You will write to us on the headline objectives, as we did not have a chance to cover all of them today.
We stopped at number 1. We will come back to the committee on the rest of them.
We would also like you to come back to us on the mentoring scheme. If there is anything else that we have not picked up on, we will highlight it to you so that you can give us a full response in your letter.
I should not speak too soon, but this may be the last time that you appear before the committee before dissolution. Thank you for working constructively in partnership with the committee.