Promoting Scotland Worldwide Inquiry
Welcome to the 21st meeting in 2004 of the European and External Relations Committee. We have a long agenda this afternoon, involving discussion with our panel of witnesses followed by a couple of Government ministers.
We have apologies from Dennis Canavan, who has constituency commitments this afternoon.
The first item on our agenda is a continuation of our promoting Scotland worldwide inquiry, which is an examination of the external relations policy, strategy and activities of the Scottish Executive.
I welcome to the committee the right hon Robin Cook, the member of Parliament for Livingston and former Foreign Secretary, and Professor Sir Neil MacCormick, a member of the European Parliament between 1999 and 2004 who has now returned to the University of Edinburgh, whence he came. Gentlemen, it is a real pleasure to have you here today to contribute to our inquiry. In the interests of party balance, we extended invitations to Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Sir Menzies Campbell but, due to diary commitments, they were unable to join us.
I offer you both the opportunity to say a few words of introduction to, or explanation of, some of the issues that relate to the inquiry. I point out that, a day or so ago, Neil MacCormick submitted a short paper, which has been distributed to members today.
Professor Sir Neil MacCormick:
I will quickly run through the points in my submission because, as you point out, no one has had much of a chance to read it.
It starts out anecdotally. One of the things that has stuck with me from the period that I spent working in Brussels was a visit I paid to the Flanders Association, which is a civic society that is aimed at promoting the identity of Flanders and advancing things Flemish in general. Flanders has remarkable powers, even compared with Scotland. One of my colleagues remarked that Belgium is now a kingdom comprising two republics. For example, both Flanders and Wallonia have treaty-making powers and full external relations powers. However, my Flemish colleagues would say, "You Scots don't know how lucky you are. You've got worldwide recognition, international football and rugby teams, pipe bands, Scotch whisky, salmon and so on." They did not use the phrase, but they were obviously talking about what we think of as Scotland the brand. They were saying that Scotland's brand identity is extremely powerful—unlike Flanders, Catalunya and Galicia, we do not have to persuade people that we exist; indeed, we are famous for existing—but we need to use it better. That is a useful point to remember. From time to time, we get involved in discussions of modernising our identity and so on. Of course, there are many aspects of modernity and post-modernity in Scotland—including this building—that we rejoice about, but it would be a great mistake to walk away from the internationally recognised symbols.
The second point in my submission relates to representing Scotland abroad. The recent referendum in the north-east of England has had a significant effect. If that part of England will not vote for a regional assembly, no other region in England will. That means that the United Kingdom will not end up in the next few years looking like Spain, where, after the historic national regions of Catalunya, Galicia and Euskadi got autonomous self-government following the adoption of the new constitution, there was a roll-out of constitutional change affecting Murcia, Andalusia and so on. That kind of roll-out will not happen in the UK, apparently, because there is no demand for it. That means that the external perception of the UK will be of the four old kingdoms of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That should be properly represented in the external relationships of the UK. I was on one of the committees of the British Council for a number of years and know that, now, it is very good at that. It has greatly changed its line with regard to what is involved in representing British cultures abroad. It would be important to try to ensure that the external representation of the UK adequately represents the internal diversity of the UK. I would suggest that culture and trade are the two most important aspects of that from a Scottish point of view, but there might be others.
The next point in my submission relates to civil society. It is worth remembering the enormous international linkages that many public civic entities in Scotland already have, such as the bar, the Law Society of Scotland, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Universities Scotland, the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Rugby Union and so on. There is a huge list of bodies that already operate in an international way and are recognised as speaking for Scotland. Obviously, it is important that they do not become limbs of Government. They should not be incorporated by the Executive but, nevertheless, the Executive should try to add value to and gain added value from that range of external representation.
On the European Union, it seems to me that, increasingly, we have to stop thinking of relations with countries in the EU as being external relations. In that regard, I note that the name of this committee is the European and External Relations Committee. Europe makes laws for Scotland, among other places. In Government terms, the UK speaks with one voice in the Council of Ministers but, in the Parliament, Scotland is a constituency and has seven members. It is already the case that we get a great deal of synergy from those members working together and that is likely to increase. It is probably easier for the Parliament to work with the MEPs than it is for the Executive to do so. Obviously, a proportion of those MEPs will be from parties other than the parties that make up the Executive but that is not a factor for the Parliament's committees, as the representation of parties in our European delegation is broadly the same as the representation of parties in the Scottish Parliament. That is a useful interface that should be used as much as possible.
I wonder whether we use the Scottish diaspora as well as we might. There is a huge pool of Scottish graduates abroad. We tend to be a bit over-impressed with the relationship with the United States of America. It is important and I would not belittle it but I would point out that Canada is hugely laden with Scottish associations, as are Australia and New Zealand. Further, in South Africa, both in terms of the majority and, in part, the minority, there is a great connection to Scotland.
I worked in the University of Oxford for a number of years. Oxford gets a huge boost from Rhodes scholarships, which bring people from the Commonwealth and America to Oxford for postgraduate study. Nothing parallels such scholarships in Scotland, which is a great shame, as the history of the United Kingdom that people in Australia, Canada, South Africa and even New Zealand—although less so there—learn is very anglocentric. The UK is still known as England in those countries. Indeed, Scottish Canadians are known as English Canadians in contrast to French Canadians. Not nearly enough postgraduates and academics look to Scotland as one of the home bases or countries with which they can link up. If there is ever an accidental surplus at the end of the year, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform might think about creating an endowment to set up Scottish Commonwealth scholarships—they could be called McConnell scholarships rather than Rhodes scholarships. To be serious, however, we need some way of fertilising such things.
Finally, why do not you have a Commonwealth premiers conference at some point? After all, there are many representations at the Uttar Pradesh, Victoria, Ontario and Scotland level in all the Commonwealth countries, except New Zealand.
Thank you. Perhaps we will put your point to the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform when he appears later this afternoon.
I invite Robin Cook to say a few words of introduction.
I welcome the committee's inquiry. In the political world that we now inhabit, the reality is that we cannot neatly compartmentalise and say, "Over there you have international affairs and over here you have domestic affairs." The two are now unavoidably and inextricably interconnected. The best way of viewing the modern world in which we live is to view things as interdependent.
I begin with a health warning about my experience at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: I left it three years ago. However, I can say that we set out to ensure that at the start, we had the fullest possible co-operation with the Scottish Parliament and that we put institutional links in place. At the time, it was possibly fortunate that the Foreign Office had a Scottish member of Parliament as the Foreign Secretary and a Glasgow graduate—Sir John Kerr—as the permanent secretary. Between us, we got off to a good start with the institution. John Kerr developed a code of practice on how the Foreign Office would relate to the devolved bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which was firmly drummed into the Foreign Office. I was pleased to have the opportunity to open the Scottish Executive EU office in Brussels, which is next door to the office of the United Kingdom permanent representation to the EU. The two work closely together.
The Foreign Office is now culturally attuned to working with departments and political organisations outside its own premises because, as a result of the increasing Europeanisation of British public life, it has become a clearing house for all the Whitehall departments. Whitehall departments—with very few exceptions—now spend around 20 to 30 per cent of their time dealing with the European angle of their business. That means that people are constantly shuttling to and from Brussels—and, indeed, sometimes to and from other European capitals; they often also have contacts with capitals in the wider world outside Europe. Nowadays, the Foreign Office is very much the holding company, if you like, and host for departmental emissaries on one kind of business or another. The Foreign Office provides real added value. It knows the local areas and the local people and it has the linguistic skills, but it has increasingly seen itself as a body that facilitates, assists, co-ordinates and collaborates with other departments in Whitehall. It therefore took naturally to the idea that it should collaborate and co-operate with the devolved bodies, which has worked quite well. We all have things to learn and things will no doubt get better over time, but we got off to a good institutional start in that respect.
I do not disagree with Neil MacCormick's Belgian interlocutor's point that Scotland has the best of all possible worlds. Our identity is clearly recognised, but, more important, we now have a democratic institution to speak and provide a central focus for Scotland. At the same time, we still have access to one of the strongest and largest networks of overseas representation through the United Kingdom. That unique combination is important. The point is not only that Scotland can benefit from the links with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the United Kingdom, but that the United Kingdom can benefit from the devolved bodies in Scotland and elsewhere.
I was still in the Cabinet when links were formed with some of the regional bodies from throughout Europe. One should remember that, before devolution, the high degree of centralisation in Britain was unusual in Europe. Indeed, England—by which I mean specifically England—is still a centralised political entity, which in Europe is an aberration. Apart from France, pretty well all the other countries in Europe have a highly devolved system of government, notably Spain and Germany. It is slightly odd that we have not gone further down the German road; after all, we wrote the constitution for Germany when we were still in charge of it, but, when we came home, we forgot the lessons that we had applied there. In the continental countries, the regional bodies are becoming increasingly more assertive. In Germany, there is a political tussle about whether the Bundeskanzler or the Länder should be the main speaker for Germany in European debates.
I declined to be drawn by those who felt that we should be apprehensive about the Scottish Executive becoming part of a network of regional bodies throughout the continent. It is in the interests of the whole of Britain that we have a body in that network to provide British input—albeit from a specific Scottish perspective—and to keep us in touch. Both sides can only benefit from that.
I thank the witnesses for their contributions to the discussion. I will pursue some questions on the points that they made.
Robin Cook mentioned the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's role in, and welcome for, the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. A couple of weeks ago, we took evidence from Henry McLeish, whose written evidence stated:
"Initially, attempts to increase Scotland's role in Europe met with difficulties at Westminster and Whitehall where it was regarded as ‘forbidden territory'."
In oral evidence, he talked specifically about the Flanders agreement, an issue that Robin Cook also raised. Henry McLeish said:
"On that occasion, I spoke to the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who was absolutely excellent."—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 23 November 2004; c 916.]
Praise indeed from Mr McLeish. Will you elaborate a bit more on that presentation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as viewing the Scottish Executive's involvement in any form of external relations as "forbidden territory"? To what extent does that view represent the reality of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the time, or today?
In view of Henry McLeish's generous reference to me, I shall pick my words with care and try to find a consensual outcome. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was anxious—"concerned" would be the wrong word—to ensure that we achieved a constructive working relationship with the devolved bodies. John Kerr deserves credit for taking the initiative and saying that a written protocol was needed. He set about preparing the code of practice and went to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast to speak to those who were steering through the devolved bodies to ensure that all bodies were involved in the process. It is important that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a good working relationship with the devolved bodies because, at the end of the day, it is the United Kingdom that signs up to commitments. That means that we have to ensure that when we sign up to those commitments, Scotland is comfortable with them, because Scotland is going to have to implement them. We were keen to get that right.
I would be the first to say that in any large institution, as well as getting the rules right one has to overcome cultural resistance to anything that is new, novel or innovative. I would not exclude the possibility of there being ad hominem cases where things did not work perfectly, but I am sceptical about the claim that anybody in the Foreign Office said that Scotland's participation in external relations was forbidden. We were keen to impress on the Scottish people and the Foreign Office the fact that the Scottish Executive would take part in European negotiations; indeed, it has done so. I am not aware of that having caused any great friction or difficulty over the past half dozen years. This morning I took the precaution of speaking to the official in charge of our European desk in Whitehall. He assured me that he was not aware of problems and that the current relationship was working well.
I also know from going around the world, beyond Europe, that ambassadors in major posts, such as in Washington, where I was last week, are aware of the Scottish dimension and work hard to ensure that it is reflected fully. Neil MacCormick mentioned the diaspora of Scots. Ambassadors in countries where there are large diaspora communities are keen to tap into them, because they are a source of access and strength.
I want to follow up the point that you made latterly in relation to representation at a European level. Perhaps Neil MacCormick could comment on this, too. Could you reflect on your comments on the differences between our model and the German Länder model in relation to who is represented and involved in discussions? There are interesting models, particularly in Belgium, of rotating representation among different institutions. Do you have any reflections that you think would help the committee's inquiry in relation to how we can maximise the degree of Scottish input into European decision making? What can we learn from the models that other European countries seem to deploy with great ease?
First, it is useful that the Flanders agreement was made. I recommend strongly that the Executive pursues contacts and gives us at Westminster feedback on them so that we can ensure that there is two-way traffic.
You have to be careful about simply importing lessons from quite different political structures. I am perhaps slightly more doubtful about the success of the Belgian model than is Neil MacCormick. Belgium is in effect two countries yoked in a single state. I am not sure that it helps Belgium's interface with the rest of Europe, never mind the world, to have such a distinction. Belgium is usually the last country to ratify all European treaties. That seems rather odd, given that Brussels is supposed to be at the forefront of European integration, but it is precisely because of the delay and difficulty in going round all the houses of regional government to get agreement that it takes so long for any treaty to be ratified. I am not sure that that is helpful to the nation or to Europe as a whole.
The German situation works well. The Länder have a lot of status. There is a connection between Länder politics and national politics. Gerhard Schröder became the Chancellor from a base in a Land, in the same way that American politicians can become president on the basis of what they have done at state level rather than in Washington. That works because there are Länder everywhere in Germany. They all have a common, strong status in the German constitution.
Scotland is always going to have to be imaginative in finding its own way forward and its own unique perspective on how to handle its position. Neil MacCormick is right that in the foreseeable future you are not going to have anything like a network of parallel bodies throughout Great Britain.
Professor Sir Neil MacCormick:
I think we are of one view on that. Germany and Belgium, whatever the strengths and weaknesses of their constitutional arrangements, have a kind of constitutional synergy, whereas we have variable geometry. All the Länder are represented in the Bundesrat. If we get to the stage at which the member state Parliaments are given the opportunity to comment formally on draft European legislation under the protocol on subsidiarity, the Bundesrat will cast one of the German votes automatically as the vote of the Länder, and the Bundestag will cast the vote of the Bund—the federation.
The situation is similar in respect of Wallonia and Flanders, although in a different way, as they are more or less the same size, whereas Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland together form a small fraction of the total population—although not of the total land area—of the UK. Therefore, getting symmetry of representation in the UK is very difficult under the current constitution. It is necessary to work with variable geometry and find ways of ensuring that representation is effective.
There are some very important issues. Obviously, Gordon Jackson will know that on justice and home affairs matters it is crucial to recognise that the UK has three criminal justice systems, which, although they have a lot in common, work differently and have different traditions. Representation of the UK in justice and home affairs matters must take account of the three legal systems. That also goes for civil and commercial law and the single market stuff.
In some specific areas—I hardly need mention fishing—the UK interest does not entirely coincide with the Scottish interest. The lion's share of the UK's fishing concerns are Scottish concerns. That is also the case on one or two other issues that have been mentioned. It is crucial that Scotland is effectively represented, but it cannot be represented by a Bundesrat on such matters because we do not have such a body. Robin Cook will know more about this than I do, but perhaps reform of the House of Lords will create some way of organising parliamentary representation of the kingdoms of the United Kingdom. However, for the time being we must work with variable geometry.
I will respond on that point. When I was Leader of the House of Commons and tried—I regret to say without ultimate success—to get a more modern second chamber, I was quite keen on the idea that a portion of the reformed second chamber should consist of people who were sent there by the devolved bodies, although they would not need to be members of the devolved bodies. The important point is that, having been chosen by a devolved body, they would be accountable to it.
I ran into two difficulties. One was that there was resistance in Westminster for the logical reason, which I could not disprove, that the devolved bodies covered only a small—although quite significant—part of the overall United Kingdom. If we add together Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and London, we are talking about 30 per cent of the electorate, which is nevertheless a minority, and there is no immediate prospect of the rest of the electorate being covered by devolved bodies. The second difficulty is that, to be honest, we did not get much resonance for the idea from the Scottish Parliament or from the other devolved bodies. Personally, I still think that there is a strong case for a second chamber that includes, as part of its overall representation, the devolved bodies within Britain.
You touched on Henry McLeish's no-go-area theme—the suggestion that the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament should not engage in external affairs. I was puzzled by that suggestion, because my experience as the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs in the first year of the Administration, when I represented Scotland as part of the UK delegation in Europe, was that it was the other way round. UKRep was clearly geared up to take account of what we wanted and what we needed—perhaps that was Robin Cook's doing. Notwithstanding the fact that some people back home wanted to portray us as being weak in the European Council, the fact was that we were in quite a strong position in the European Council. It was useful to have more votes than nominally independent countries.
That obviously works all right when the leadership in the Scottish Executive and at Westminster comes from the same party. I admit that it appears that it will be a hell of a long time before there is cohabitation between different parties, but it may happen one day. How will the arrangement work when a Scottish minister is part of a British delegation to the European Union but is politically incompatible with the lead member of that delegation?
The short answer to that question is that it would be a major calamity if Labour left office either at Westminster or in Edinburgh.
It will not happen any time soon.
Now that we have got that out of the road—
I admit to a degree of bias in my answer.
I share that bias.
There is a point to the member's question. The interface between the devolved institutions and Westminster has worked very well over the past half dozen years. That is true in the case of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As I indicated, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is accustomed culturally to being the interface between the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. It accepts instructions from and facilitates efforts by other departments and bodies to make the best case for their patch of Britain or their speciality. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has taken naturally to working with the devolved bodies.
I am sure that what John Home Robertson says about his experience as a fisheries minister is correct. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and others involved in those negotiations would want someone with expertise and authority to speak for them. They would not be over-proprietorial about who did the speaking. However, it is fair to say that the real test of the robustness of the arrangements and of the institutional agreements will come when there are different political colours at the two ends of the relationship. We have yet to reach that stage, and it is no part of my business to hasten its arrival.
There is another advantage at present, while the arrangements are still new and young. One can see that around this table and I have seen it in the past hour, as I went round the building. One of our strengths in making the new arrangements work is that a large number of people who have experience at Westminster are now in the Scottish Parliament. Their faces are well known to those of us who are still at Westminster. That has been helpful in getting the arrangements off to a better start.
I am not certain that parliamentary bureaucracy necessarily takes the same view of former Westminster MPs. I am sure that it was just a slip of the tongue on Mr Cook's part when he said that Labour was in power in Edinburgh. Of course, cohabitation with another party is working well here.
How do Robin Cook and Sir Neil MacCormick see the role of Scotland developing? Mr Cook said that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had become attuned to dealing with other departments. Do both witnesses believe that the Scottish Executive is similarly attuned? We now have six ministers with varying degrees of responsibility for external relations. The minister responsible for co-ordinating them has a very heavy workload, because he is the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform. To return to the consultative steering group report, would it be helpful to have one minister co-ordinating the external relations role?
I would not have the impertinence to suggest what arrangements the Scottish Executive should make. However, I will talk about the general principle, because I am familiar with the debate. I believe that it would be a major error to subcontract all external affairs to one body. We have had this debate in Whitehall and Westminster—not recently, but it was live five or 10 years ago, when people argued that we should have one ministry for Europe to handle all the European interfaces. I always thought that that would be a mistake. As I said in my opening remarks, one cannot now separate a domestic policy from its international dimension. It is not helpful culturally or psychologically to suggest to any department that it can subcontract external relations to someone else. It is important that every department mainstreams its European and external dimensions and recognises that it is operating in an interdependent world.
It is necessary to have a body that specialises in external relations, which knows who to contact, where to go and how to work the system, and which has the linguistic skills. Those are the assets that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office brings to the table. However, there should not be in Westminster or in Edinburgh a single body that tries to handle the international dimension of all the work, because the international dimension will grow in each department and should be encouraged to do so.
I recognise that the role of a minister with exclusive responsibility for external relations would be to co-ordinate parts of the Executive. My worry is that the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform has a heavy workload and does not have the time to deal with external relations and to undertake that important co-ordinating role.
I would not regard myself as competent to express with authority a view on that. I know Tom McCabe personally and I am sure that he will be diligent and assiduous in his role.
Professor Sir Neil MacCormick:
I am not au fait with the inward workings of the Executive, so I can no more comment on that in detail than can Robin Cook. I agree very much that most of the committees of the Scottish Parliament and the ministries in the Executive have important external linkages, with Europe in particular—we have only to consider the extent to which European legislation impinges on the work of committees of the Scottish Parliament, as members of the European and External Relations Committee well know. It certainly follows that Executive ministers should and will be concerned daily with Scotland's external links. I agree strongly with Keith Raffan that it would be good to have strong and effective co-ordination. I do not know and it would be impertinent of me to claim to know with what other portfolio that responsibility might be combined.
There is a danger that our discussion is focusing too much on Europe and the United States. I want to return to Sir Neil MacCormick's interesting suggestion that we establish Scottish Commonwealth scholarships along the lines of the Rhodes scholarships. Perhaps Mr Cook will also comment on that. Of course, as a sub-state Parliament, the Scottish Parliament is not a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, but Margaret Ewing and I are both on the executive committee of the active Scotland branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and I am regional representative on the CPA's executive committee. Sir Neil's interesting suggestion should be followed up, as should Scotland's potential international development role through the Executive, which has already been embarked upon. For example, Scotland could have a role in countries in sub-Saharan Africa, with which we have a long-standing historical connection and which are currently facing major problems, not least because of HIV and AIDS.
Professor Sir Neil MacCormick:
There is an important and urgent opportunity for the Scottish Parliament and Executive to be as connected as possible to the Commonwealth. There are, indeed, enormously significant historical links. Those connections should be made as well as and not at the expense of connections with Europe and the United States. The universities, the royal colleges, such as the Royal College of Nursing, and the churches already have big links with sub-Saharan Africa, and we should strengthen those links and become as effective a force for good as possible. Of course, we cannot be everywhere all the time and there must be a degree of focus and specialisation. However, I very much agree with you.
At the international AIDS conference, I met a representative from Médecins Sans Frontières, from Western Cape Province in South Africa. I asked what we could do to help, to which he replied, "Stop poaching our nurses." It might be an idea to send retired nurses and doctors to help, because the infrastructure that is needed to distribute antiretrovirals is lacking.
It is undeniably true that Scotland has a long history of being culturally interconnected with the rest of the world. That is something to be proud of. We have only to read the magnificent book "How the Scots Invented the Modern World" to understand the depth and range of Scotland's international contacts, which are an asset for us all, and which we should, indeed, seek to extend beyond the European and Anglo-Saxon world. Some 3,000 of my constituents are employed by Japanese firms, which is an obvious reason for the Scottish Executive to nurture contacts with and Scotland's identity and image in Japan.
The strength of our higher education is an immense asset to which I hope that both the Parliament and the Executive will give all possible encouragement, as I know that they are committed to doing. It is world class and well developed. I know from my experience of travelling the world as Foreign Secretary that, once somebody has been here as an undergraduate or postgraduate and has gained a favourable impression, that is an asset on which we can build for the rest of their life. That is one of the reasons why it is so important for us to encourage those from developing and industrialised nations to come here as students. We never know where they will end up in the future, and that could be a real asset to us.
I am sure that Robin Cook will take no exception to my referring back to his comment about Labour being in control in both places—
Can we focus on the agenda to hand, please?
Does he mean Labour or new Labour? That apart, given his vast experience of other countries through his involvement with the Foreign Office, does he feel that Scotland gets good value out of its system of embassies? He referred to the major ambassadors being very much aware of Scotland, the new Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. What about the lesser lights?
When people think of the Foreign Office and embassies, they tend to think of Washington, Paris or Madrid. Some of those embassies are spectacular. We still have the best palace in Paris, because Wellington got there in 1814 and said that he was having that one and, in 1814, there were not many people around in France to say, "No, you cannot have it," although we have had to be slightly hopeful that he got the title deeds right at the time.
Those embassies are the aberrations—they are not typical. The majority of our foreign posts abroad have four or fewer UK personnel in them and some of them are run almost single-handedly. When I was at the Foreign Office, our post in Yerevan had only one UK person working there. The embassies do a magnificent job and, although the UK's diplomatic service is smaller than those of Germany and France by about a half or a third, it matches in quality the output of the French and German foreign services. I am sure that all the posts where there is a Scottish dimension will want to be alive to that and to deliver on that; however, one must be realistic about what can be achieved in the circumstances.
Will those embassies be on the receiving end of a specific brief from either the Foreign Office or the Scottish Executive on live Scottish issues?
Oh, yes. Daily universal mailings go out to all 201 posts. I was startled to discover, after a year in post, that every time I took off from any airport in the world, a telegram went to 201 posts saying, "Foreign Secretary in the air." I must confess that I found that slightly surreal.
It was a helpful reminder to you.
Common mailings routinely come out of embassies' machines. Things such as the code of practice or anything to do with work in the Scottish Executive will go around them all.
Would an issue such as the fresh talent initiative, which is central to the Government's priorities here, be communicated in that fashion?
I could not say categorically that there has been a universal mailing on that specific initiative; however, the facilities exist for that to happen, if it was thought appropriate. Not just in the context of the Scottish Executive, important though that dimension is, especially for this study, we are trying to encourage people to come to the UK generally to fill posts that require a high level of skill and to participate in higher education.
I have two final questions for Sir Neil MacCormick. First, given the comments that he made about the Commonwealth and his vast experience of European matters, does he believe that there are any blocks in the European single-market legislation that would prevent his aspirations in respect of the Commonwealth from being fulfilled?
Secondly, will he comment on his statement that
"the quantity of Scottish input into the Commission's Directorates General is diminishing"?
Professor Sir Neil MacCormick:
I am glad that you asked about that point, because I forgot to mention it in my introduction.
European Union students at our universities enjoy the advantage of being deemed to be home students, which means that they pay the same fees as UK students do. That puts them at a considerable advantage over students from the Commonwealth, Japan, Taiwan or wherever, who pay the overseas fee rate, which makes them advantageous students to capture for a university's finance officer. The differential between European Union students and overseas students is not to our universities' advantage in trying to recruit from further afield, but they still do that and recruit many good students.
As I have said, it would be good to create an atmosphere in Australia, South Africa and India in which obtaining an award to go to a Scottish university was of high prestige. If we scratched somebody in Melbourne and asked them what they thought it would be great to have, they would probably mention a Rhodes scholarship to go to the University of Oxford. They would probably not say that they would love to go to the University of Edinburgh. We do not have that magnet. The Rhodes scholarship is just one; Commonwealth scholarships and such stuff already exist. Finding better ways to raise the prestige of coming to study in Scotland—although prestige is already high for some purposes—would be good.
As for your second question, I am well aware that Kenny Munro, Roderick Skinner, Maurice Mackenzie and James Currie are back in Scotland. They represent a senior generation of European civil servants who were in at the beginning with George Thomson. They worked their way through and have now retired. They did a huge job. I do not know the facts, but I do not have the impression that an upcoming generation will replace them or that a good share of bright young graduates of our universities or bright young people from industry are making their way into working in the directorates-general in Brussels. That is bad. The number of Irish people in Brussels is about 10 times the number of Scots and we should worry about that.
I will mention a connected worry. The tables from the Scottish Qualifications Authority on people offering foreign languages at higher are outrageous. That is a crisis and a national scandal about which we seem to be unable to do anything.
I will make two points, although I would like to make many comments on what has been said. My first point follows what Neil MacCormick said about the presence of Scots in Europe but is more about the Scottish Parliament's presence in Europe and the Scottish Executive's representative there. When you worked in Europe, was that presence helpful? Could it be expanded? Can we learn lessons from the early stages of that office?
Professor Sir Neil MacCormick:
I was not unusual in having extremely cordial relationships with the Executive's representation in Scotland House and with Scotland Europa. Of course Executive civil servants must keep a distance from MEPs, because they are servants of the Executive rather than of MEPs. On the other hand, on many pieces of legislation that were of interest and concern to the Executive, MEPs had a similar view. That applied to the bathing water directive, the stuff about water for whisky plants and a huge number of things. The MacBrayne's ferries are another good example—I should say Caledonian MacBrayne ferries; the other name is at least two generations out of date.
We can do much good work together. Scotland House worked well. As he is now retired, I mention with affection George Calder, who did his job splendidly. I very much appreciated working with him, as I did with Donald MacInnes and his team at Scotland Europa. That is good. Although it is important that MEPs are independent representatives of their constituencies and their political parties, one can respect that and still do an awful lot of effective work together. That set of relationships might say something about the possibilities for different cohabitations in future situations. The topic was raised earlier.
My impression is that the representatives of Scotland and of the UK work closely and well together. After all, that was the logic behind putting Scotland House just round the corner from the UK office. I do not think that it is sensible to consider in isolation how many Scots are in Scotland House; it is more important to ensure that they are exploiting the added strength of the UK representation and the base that it can provide for influence.
On MEPs, we have a senior diplomat in the UK office whose sole job is to liaise with the European Parliament, which is important for supporting and keeping in touch with our MEPs. It is also important for the interests of the British Government, because the European Parliament has increasing power to wield on matters such as European directives and the budget.
My second point is on the broader international sphere. The G8 summit is coming to Gleneagles next year. How will that project on to the wider world stage and not just in the eight countries that are most directly involved? It seems to me that there is an opportunity there that must be considered; thought must also be given to how we can build on what will presumably be a declaration of Gleneagles.
There is an obvious opportunity for branding, if I can put it in those terms. The meeting not only will be in Scotland but will be in a part of Scotland that can be used to back up Scotland's attraction as a centre for tourism, sport and luxury goods, as well as all the other things that one might associate with Gleneagles—he said with care.
However, I would not want people to think purely in terms of the G8 countries. The G8 countries are overwhelmingly in Europe, North America and Japan, but it is likely that other countries will come to the meeting to hold dialogues. For example, on the margins of the meeting—on the days before it, for example—it is normal for third-world countries such as African countries to come. There will certainly be African countries there this time, given that the Prime Minister has said that Africa will be one of the two major focuses of his presidency. If Prime Ministers are coming from such countries, one has to think about the opportunities to ensure that the good things are projected back home with them.
I want to pick up one point that Neil MacCormick made when he was talking about encouraging students to come here from places with long historical Scottish links. I am all for that; the idea of floating some scholarships might be a good one. However, I would not neglect the new and growing industrial giants of the world such as Brazil and China, with whom we might not have historical connections but with whom we will need to make connections in the future. To its credit, Heriot-Watt University has quite a lot of Chinese students. Perhaps we should consider more ways in which we can maintain contact with those countries and see whether we can build on some of the networks started by those who have been there. In the next generation, the big and dominant economies will not be the current G8 countries; they will be countries such as Brazil, China and India.
Having Neil MacCormick and Robin Cook here has been a useful way of punctuating our evidence-taking sessions on the promotion of Scotland. My first question is to Robin Cook who, by sharing his experiences in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has helped to debunk some of the myths that are perpetuated that the FCO and other Whitehall organisations are blundering around, are insensitive to our needs and have yet to learn about the existence of the Scottish Parliament. How can the very fruitful relationship between the Scottish Executive and Whitehall, particularly the FCO, be further improved, entrenched, developed, enhanced—call it what you will?
I thought about that question this morning on the way to the Parliament, as I knew that it might arise. I am also conscious that there is no greater sin in politics than the sin of complacency. However, I can think of no recommendation for institutional or structural change that would improve the relationship. That said, I am sure that any system, no matter how good its structures or institutions are, can be improved by working at it with the benefit of experience and constant practice. I am sure that the relationship will improve over time. People will become more familiar with arrangements and will develop a culture and habit of working together. However, I fear that I have come to committee without a recommendation for structural or institutional change.
I have a question for Sir Neil MacCormick. I agree with his assessment of the importance of the Scottish diaspora, particularly in North America. I also agree that too much emphasis is placed on the United States of America. However, I do not share his analysis in respect of Canadian Scots describing themselves as English Canadians—that is not my experience.
On the views and perceptions of Scotland that exist in places such as the United States, I think that everyone appreciates that the Canadians' appreciation of Scotland is a little more sophisticated than that of their cousins across the Canadian-American border. How can we help to debunk some of the myths about Scotland that exist in the United States? Some Americans are obsessed with battles that took place in Scotland in the 14th century. How can we move people on from those dark ages?
Professor Sir Neil MacCormick:
Your guess is as good as mine. As Robin Cook mentioned, the United States has seen a great flowering in the study of the Scottish enlightenment. Indeed, around the time of the bicentenary of the American constitution, the Smithsonian ran a project, in which I took part, to celebrate the roots of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton's thinking in the Scottish enlightenment and the relationship with Wilson and Witherspoon. Relationships like that are important.
To some extent, the question relates to changes in popular culture. I remember reading an article in the American Political Science Review of about 1935. It was written by Harold Laski on the subject of the political significance of the disruption. If one went down Princes Street today and stopped people to ask, "What is the political significance of the disruption?", I am sure that the answer would be, "What disruption did you have in mind?"
In some ways, because cultures have changed, the tokens that people took for granted—and perhaps still do in Stornoway, for all I know—have passed. Nevertheless, as Alasdair Morrison says, it is important that people have a stronger and better sense of the real history of Scotland.
The point that I made was not that Scots Canadians are unconscious of their Scottish heritage, but that they are Canadians first and foremost and that, partly because of the clash between French-Canadian and English-Canadian culture—between the Francophone and the Anglophone—the two identities get rolled up together.
As I said, the conception of the political history of these islands that is held even in Canada but also in Australia and New Zealand is quite vague. It is particularly noticeable in relation to the law, as English common law has taken root throughout the English-speaking Commonwealth—and to some extent in India too, via Victorian qualifications. Some of the links are missing, but we could build better on our cultural links.
Three of the most brilliant recent graduates of my department at the University of Edinburgh have been from Chile, Brazil and Argentina. Those links also matter. I have strong personal academic links with Japan and Korea, although not with China, as it so happens, but I know that the Royal Society of Edinburgh is building links with the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Although we have to try to be everywhere, we should notice the shadows that lie over some bits of the globe. Indeed, there is a bit of a shadow over the Commonwealth at the moment.
Alasdair Morrison has stolen some of my points to some extent, but I will follow up on the role for bilateral agreements.
Both panellists have unique experience of the European dimension. Do you feel that there is a place for bilateral, interregional co-operation? Members will probably be aware that the Executive has signed up to cultural and language agreements with Catalonia and Tuscany. From your independent perspectives, do you think that that assists the promotion of Scotland?
I am all for developing links at regional as well as governmental and state level. Given increased mobility and better communications in the modern world, diplomacy cannot be confined to communications between Governments, as it used to be; it must be extended to communications between people. The greater the multiplicity of official communications between regions, through town twinning for example, the better. I am all for such links, as they can provide added strength.
There is another point that I regret not having made earlier. We tend to talk about European lobbying in the context of Brussels. In fact, if there is a big issue for which Britain is campaigning, 50 per cent of the Foreign Office effort will go into lobbying the European capitals, to try to influence the position that they take when they get to Brussels.
Would you encourage the Executive to take up that piece of advice?
Absolutely. I was about to say that, if one is working to promote a perspective on an issue that is of particular importance to Scotland or perhaps even to Britain more generally, it is helpful if that perspective can be implanted through regional networks and can feed up through countries' political and media circles, because most of the time, by the time countries get to Brussels, they have a prepared position. That is perfectly proper, but the more one can influence the position before it is adopted, the better.
Sir Neil MacCormick spoke about the synergy of Scottish MEPs, but neither panellist has mentioned the European Committee of the Regions. I know that Robin Cook was president of the European socialist group. Does the Committee of the Regions present opportunities that we should be exploiting? How could we do that to a greater extent? That question is for both panellists.
Professor Sir Neil MacCormick:
You have much more experience than I have of the workings of the Committee of the Regions. When I was an MEP, I found that it was a body with which I was not often in close contact. That might well be my fault—mea culpa. My friend and colleague Keith Brown is now the leader of the European alliance group on the Committee of the Regions. We used to meet and discuss things at the Scottish National Party's European group, which met about four times a year.
Bluntly, I think that the impact that the COR has had has been a bit of a disappointment in comparison with the hopes with which it was launched. For what it is worth, my analysis of that is that, for a committee of the regions, it is far too much a committee of the states. Representation on the COR is based on the same proportionalities as is representation in the European Parliament. I made a point about that the last time that I appeared before the committee, when we were discussing people from the network of regional parliamentary European committees. The COR's composition should be adjusted so that it reflects slightly more the composition of the regions of Europe. It is madness that Malta has more members on the COR than Wales and—I think—Scotland have. God knows what relations are like between Malta and Gozo these days.
I know what Professor MacCormick means and I do not disagree with him, but I think that it is unfair to blame the COR for the sense of disappointment, because the European institutions have been reluctant to give the COR any real powers or influence to exert. However, there is a bit of confusion about whether the COR is a committee of local government—which, although it is a tremendously important and vibrant part of any democracy, is not regional government—or a voice of the regions.
The COR was quite active in making pronouncements under the dynamic leadership of Albert Bore, who is a successful, well-established and long-experienced local government leader.
And a Scot.
Yes. I hope that I will not be misquoted in the west midlands press but, although a city the size of Birmingham is a place of great significance, it is not in itself a region. Frankly, the way forward in providing a regional voice within Europe lies in the networks of regional governments that are building up, which will speak for places that are established as regional centres of decision making. That is not to do down the Committee of the Regions—far from it. I rather wish that it had been given a greater role within the European institutions.
I am afraid that I must bring matters to a conclusion; however, I have one final question. In the course of the past few years, the image of Scotland in the minds of many people has been very much associated with a major international conflict of which the United Kingdom has been a part. What are the implications for Scotland's image abroad of our involvement in the war in Iraq?
You said that you were going to try to close the session, so it is ill advised of you to put a question such as that.
There was a whole discussion on the Committee of the Regions that I wanted us to have.
In brief, one of the reasons why I resigned was because I did not believe that it made sense for us to become involved in a military intervention for which there was not international support. I was concerned about the international price that Britain as a whole would pay and we have, undoubtedly, paid that price—if you travel the world and talk privately to those who represent us throughout the world, you will find that there is a price to be paid by us for our association with an adventure of the American Administration that has also damaged America's standing in much of the world. Ultimately, the world will do business with America because it has no alternative but to do so, as America is such a hyper-power. Britain is not a hyper-power; we also need good will and a good standing, which we need to work at.
I am not aware of anybody taking a distinctive animus against Scotland although, as part of Britain, we are paying the price that Britain, as a whole, is paying. One of our assets is the fact that, in most of the world, there is a clear grasp of the distinction between Scotland and England. In the first few months for which I was Foreign Secretary, all the other foreign secretaries gave up referring to me as the Foreign Secretary of England because I always corrected them and they did not care for the constant interruptions as I put them right. In my years at the Foreign Office and in European politics, I found it quite an asset to be able to say to countries such as Portugal, Belgium and Denmark that I was familiar with how they felt because I came from Scotland, which was a small country with a long history of living next to a large country. There is a lot of good will towards Scotland, which has not been dented by the war in Iraq; however, Britain, as a whole, has suffered.
Professor Sir Neil MacCormick:
I very much agree. A report was quoted in the papers at the weekend, which was apparently prepared in and for the Pentagon, on the loss of hearts and minds. I recall both the convener and Robin Cook saying that that would happen, when the adventure—the invasion—started. It was a terrible pity. I was at the European convention at the time, and the chill that entered the atmosphere—for example, during the discussion of common foreign security policy in Europe—was palpable. I have to say that I think that a wrong thing was done, which has damaged our collective interest. I also agree with Robin Cook that abroad—although hardly at all now in these islands—people still talk about the United Kingdom as England; they do not think that Scotland is part of it, hence we get away with it.
On behalf of the committee, I thank Robin Cook and Neil MacCormick very much for their contribution to the committee today. We appreciate the time that you have spent here and the evidence that you have given to the committee's inquiry.
Professor Sir Neil MacCormick:
Thank you for the honour of inviting me.
Thank you. I look forward to your report.
I hope that it will be published in January.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
In item 2 we continue our promoting Scotland worldwide inquiry. I am pleased to welcome to the meeting the right hon Jim Wallace, the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, and his colleagues. I invite Mr Wallace to introduce his colleagues and to make an opening statement.
I am delighted to do so. I am accompanied by Ann McVie, from the higher education division of the Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department, and by Julia Amour, of Scottish Development International.
Supporting the global development of Scottish businesses and our education institutions is an important reason for supporting and promoting Scotland overseas. I am pleased to be here to answer questions that the committee may have on my areas of responsibility. Mr McCabe, who has overall responsibility for the Executive's international strategy, will address the broader issues when he gives evidence later. Committee members will want to cover many areas, but to set the scene I will highlight three key aspects of the work of Scottish Development International, which members will be aware is a joint venture under the ownership of the Scottish Executive and Scottish Enterprise. I will comment first on SDI's role and focus.
The Executive's top priority is growing the economy and we have given SDI the task of contributing to that by supporting the growing number of Scottish-based businesses that wish to internationalise and by attracting continued inward investment. Bringing knowledge into Scotland will help to stimulate enterprise and increase productivity, and it remains an important part of our recently refreshed "A Smart, Successful Scotland" strategy. Globalisation poses many challenges to Scotland and SDI has an important role to play in helping us meet such challenges, particularly by promoting Scotland overseas as an excellent place in which to do business. SDI's programmes need to contribute to the achievement of the goals of "A Smart, Successful Scotland" and need to be aligned with our wide aspirations, as set out in the Executive's recently published international strategy. As chair of the SDI's supervisory board, I am keen that SDI should now update its business plans to take account of those strategies and I have approved the work on which it is embarking in that regard.
Secondly, it is important to be clear about the specific contribution that SDI makes towards promoting Scotland overseas, which is to position Scotland as an excellent business location and a confident country with a global outlook, world-class universities, a modern infrastructure and a highly skilled and flexible workforce. I know that the committee is particularly interested in ensuring that SDI's message reinforces and complements the wider promotion of contemporary Scotland. I strongly endorse that. Ministers have therefore been taking the lead in developing appropriate, high-level messages on which each agency that is involved in promoting Scotland abroad can build, according to its own specific role.
We are sowing in fertile ground. Scotland's strength as a place in which to do business has recently received high-profile, independent recognition through the European region of the future award from "fDi" magazine, which is a title in the Financial Times stable. We will seek to make the most of that accolade in the coming year in SDI's marketing to key global business audiences and more generally. Ministerial engagements overseas will provide a high-profile platform and I will promote the achievement of the award during my week-long visit to China in January next year.
We must constantly strive to find the most effective ways of reaching global audiences. As members will undoubtedly have heard from many witnesses, Scotland is a small country and the potential market worldwide is huge. The resources available to us are not limitless, so we must prioritise carefully to ensure that we do not spread our efforts too thinly. SDI is already considering its overseas representation and its sales and marketing approaches in seeking to realise even more business benefits for Scotland.
It is also vital to share information and co-ordinate activity so that we can find the opportunities to combine forces. There has been a lot of praise for the Scotland House model of shared representation in Brussels. I see merit in that approach wherever there are locations that are suitable bases for a range of Scottish agencies. SDI already has a standing agreement with VisitScotland to make space available in any of SDI's overseas offices, as required.
My introductory remarks have focused on the promotion of Scotland's business interests overseas. I understand that the committee wishes to spend some time on that area today. However, it would be wrong for me to close without acknowledging the great international asset that Scotland has in our further and higher education sectors. That is demonstrated by the significant increase in the number of international students who are coming to study at our universities—up by some 50 per cent in the five years to 2002-03, to more than 15,000 students. As well as bringing direct economic benefits, that creates an important pool of potential fresh talent and future ambassadors for Scotland. The Executive supports a range of activities to promote the international student agenda. We also encourage Scottish educational bodies to participate in the wider promotion of Scotland, through events such as tartan day and ministerial programmes.
Scotland's devolved Government is committed to a long-term approach to promoting Scotland overseas with the aim of securing lasting benefit. I have outlined some of the ways in which the enterprise and lifelong learning portfolio contributes to that agenda. I look forward to answering the committee's questions.
You mentioned that ministers have been involved at a high level in formulating strategic messages about contemporary Scotland. To what extent are those messages uniformly presented to a wider audience by the different agencies of government? I ask that question because during our evidence taking I have been struck by the fact that a multiplicity of organisations are involved in some way, either big or small, in the promotion of Scotland abroad. If we are to maximise the effect of that work, it is important that we adhere to your central point: the message needs to be cohesive, uniform and universal. To what extent is that the case? Do ministers accept that there is a job of work to be done to secure that?
There is a job of work to be done to improve it, but over recent months things have got much better. An international strategy has been published and the Parliament has an opportunity to debate it. The strategy identified some of the key building blocks of the coherent message that we want to put out. Obviously, the emphasis will differ between agencies. It should not be surprising that in SDI there will be a stronger business and enterprise dimension to the message. Increasing coherence and consistency in the message has built up in recent times. I would be the first to accept that there is always scope to improve that. However, we have a better handle on the message.
Scotland must build on its traditional strengths. When I visited Catalonia last year, one of the Catalans whom we met said to me very forcefully that they thought that it was a tremendous advantage that Scotland had readily identifiable aspects such as whisky and tartan, to name but two. Sean Connery was mentioned as a third. We should not lose those. The Catalans bemoaned the fact that most British tourists who land in Catalonia say that they are going on holiday in Spain, whereas many Spaniards who land here say that they are going to Scotland. That is an advantage of which we should not lose sight and on which we should build.
The other strong strand of the message that we want to come through is that this is a very modern country that is involved in cutting-edge technology, has a lively cultural scene and can contribute to international architecture with buildings such as this.
I am sure that you will be pleased to hear that much that you said in your introductory remarks was said by no less a figure than Robin Cook in the previous evidence-taking session. In particular, he referred to our excellent universities and our further and higher education sectors.
You mentioned the importance of trying to reach global audiences. Clearly, the Executive has outlined its priorities, which include the promotion of Scotland in all parts of the world. How limited would the Executive's efforts be without the advantage of having embassies and consulates right around the world?
My view and the view of my colleagues is that we benefit greatly from being part of the UK and having access to that network of consulates and embassies. From my personal experience, having engaged in a number of foreign visits on which we have been assisted by the relevant consulate, embassy or high commission, I can say that those establishments go out of their way to be helpful and supportive and to give good advice. That is an undoubted advantage. SDI works with UK Trade and Investment and its parent departments, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. On a daily basis, SDI provides input on Scottish strengths with regard to the inward investment group and is consulted—along with ministers—by UKTI, the DTI and the FCO on the relevant policies to ensure that the Scottish dimension is taken into account.
You mentioned the importance of building on our traditional strengths, industries and the perceptions about Scotland that people across the world have. While recognising the importance of all that, how do we move towards a position in which we can promote Scotland, grow business and make Scotland a hugely important place to locate? How do we get that message across?
The areas for which I have departmental responsibility are very much the kind of industries with which SDI is engaged in trying to get that message across.
When I went to the USA in October, I visited Microsoft in Seattle and spent time in San Jose, meeting people in the electronics industry, identifying Scotland's role in that industry and talking to companies that have a long history of inward investment in Scotland and which spoke highly of the talent pool for their operations in Scotland. Much of that work in the electronics industry relates to cutting-edge technology. Next month's visit to China will involve a number of companies that are engaged in the life sciences sector, which is one in which Scotland has considerable strengths. That plays into the other part of my portfolio, which is education and lifelong learning, because of the importance of the quality of universities. Often, when you go abroad, you hear your country's praises sung more loudly than they are at home but, when I was in Japan and the USA, what I heard said about the excellence of Scotland's universities was reassuring. That is undoubtedly an asset. We must continue to push that message and ensure that our universities, SDI and ministers put it across consistently.
You said that your key responsibility was growing the economy. Recently, Edinburgh hosted a meeting of the group of regions with legislative power—Regleg. In relation to growing the economy, what did Scotland gain from hosting that so-called prestigious conference? What was your input into that conference?
I suppose that someone could do an economic analysis to determine the precise benefit of having many people spending money in Edinburgh. Far more important, however, is the fact that we are engaging with other nations and regions in Europe that have legislative powers but which are not full member states. Engaging at that level was never open to the United Kingdom prior to devolution. It gives us another level at which we can operate in Europe, to make our voice heard and to create strategic partnerships.
I think that it was Neil MacCormick who talked about the importance of focusing attention not only on Brussels but on the work that can be done in many other places. That is a particular benefit of Regleg, because it has given us the opportunity to engage with a number of areas and Governments in the European Union to take forward common issues, for example a common agenda on deregulation. We also worked to ensure that in the debate on the European constitution the regional dimension was understood and recognised within the European Union, which was of particular importance.
I was involved in the collective planning of the arrangements for the conference, but I would not claim any direct involvement, for the simple reason that on the first day I was in Brussels meeting the internal market commissioner to discuss deregulation, not least in respect of the financial services industry, and on the second day—St Andrew's day—I was in Paris to sign an education co-operation agreement with the French Government and to attend a St Andrew's day reception hosted by the British ambassador at the British embassy. I note that that was not picked up in an SNP press release, which thought that the British ambassador did nothing. I am happy to put the record straight.
I think that it took you 14 minutes, Mr Wallace, to get that into the debate. You are slipping—you would have been much quicker in the old days.
There are points in your response that I could take up, Mr Wallace, but I will not waste the committee's time. I will pick up on another issue. You talked about Scotland's highly skilled and flexible workforce and its ability to attract inward investment, but from the First Minister we understand that there is a significant shortage of highly skilled and flexible workers, and that we are looking outside our borders to bring them in. Why is a highly skilled and flexible workforce a selling point for Scotland?
Mr Gallie may be confusing two things. With the fresh talent initiative, which the First Minister has highlighted and pushed forward, we recognise that the demographic trend is for Scotland's population to decline, and for the profile of that population to comprise more older people and fewer people of working age. That poses particular challenges for us, which is why we need to put a lot of enthusiasm, weight and effort behind the fresh talent initiative. However, that is different from recognising our current strength of a pool of talent, particularly in electronics, financial services and the life sciences.
Companies have said to me that one of the reasons why they located to and invested in Scotland is the quality and flexibility of employees. There is no contradiction. We recognise that in a number of key industries in which we have a track record and in which there is considerable scope for further development, we have employees with a reputation for quality. That does not contradict or detract from the efforts that we have to make, given that demographics are not on our side. Scotland's population trend is falling and we must address that.
I have two questions. First, you talked about the British embassy network and the partnership opportunities that it presents, but do you think that we make enough use of the consulates, particularly in the United States? I presume that they are strategically placed, but is that within a UK context and does that marry with Scottish Enterprise's priorities? When Mr McLeish gave evidence to the committee, he mentioned the importance of the oil industry in Houston. I believe that we have a consulate there. Will the minister explain a little bit about that?
My second question is on the extension of Scottish offices throughout the globe. You mentioned the Scotland House model and how effectively that works, with the Executive and Scotland Europa being co-located. In the United States we have SDI in Boston and a first secretary who works from the British embassy. How do you envisage our presence in China rolling out and will it be different from the other two models?
I said earlier in answer to Alasdair Morrison's question that both embassies and consulates have important roles to play. They take seriously their responsibility to promote business, commerce and trade. In the United States, I have had contact and involvement with the consulates in Boston, Houston and San Francisco through visits that I have made. We are pushing at an open door and there is a willingness to help. Those are the three cities—San Francisco and San Jose are close to each other—in which SDI has major operations. I think that Mr Raffan and the convener visited its Boston office recently. To be fair, the consul-general in San Francisco was appointed very recently, but in Houston and Boston I got the impression that there is a good working relationship with SDI officers.
On the question about shared offices, I think that co-location can work well. If there are possible co-tenants who could help to make an impact, we should consider them. In the United States, it is a question of horses for courses. In terms of political influence and involvement, it makes sense for the first secretary to be based in Washington, but that is not the place to be for economic activity. Therefore, after a considerable amount of work and analysis, the decision was made to locate the main SDI presence on the eastern seaboard of the United States in Boston. That makes sense, given our connections with the life sciences industry there and our formal relationship with the Massachusetts Office of International Trade & Investment.
On China, nothing is fixed, but I suspect that because the country is so vast there is an advantage in having a strong presence in both Beijing and Shanghai. China is a huge market; I will be there next month and, subject to the final decision, I think that we can maintain a strong presence in both cities.
I put to you a point that we heard during our evidence taking on the United States and which will, I think, be included in our report. We have the huge globalscot network, but I wonder whether we use it enough. We took evidence from a whisky company that had had no contact whatsoever with SDI, and the person involved was a globalscot member. How can we get the message across? How can we make sure that we use Scots to their full potential in vast countries such as China and the United States?
That is a fair question. Globalscot has recruited almost 800 members, which indicates that SDI has not been slouching around when it comes to recruitment. It is in the nature of the work that the time that people can offer will vary. People might not be in a position to undertake very much, but we must try to ensure that contacts are kept fresh so that if their circumstances change and they are in a position to make a bigger contribution, we can tap into that.
In the past year, more than 30 per cent of globalscot members have been actively involved in helping to boost Scotland's economy, which has resulted in 450 contributions. Those include making senior contacts and introductions, business mentoring, assisting with negotiations and, in some cases, acting as non-executive directors. Those who contribute make a worthwhile contribution, but one issue is how we keep fresh the contacts with people who may not have been as active in the recent past and do not lose sight of them. We are considering that issue.
You corrected my exaggeration that seven ministers are involved in external relations—you said that there are only six. We have those six ministers; the external relations and the promotion of Scotland divisions and the EU office in the Executive, which have a combined staff of 48; SDI, which has 20 overseas offices and 175 staff; the Scottish affairs office in Washington; VisitScotland; VisitBritain; Scottish Networks International; the globalscot network; Friends of Scotland; and, of course, tartan day—the list goes on. I am concerned about the apparent fragmentation. A multiplicity of people, organisations and initiatives are involved in promoting Scotland overseas. Are too many cooks spoiling the broth? Is the co-ordination working?
We need to consider what is appropriate for particular issues. You mention that six ministers are involved; it is important that we mainstream the promotion of Scotland. I corrected your suggestion that seven ministers are involved but, arguably, 20 of us have that responsibility, one way or another. For example, Colin Boyd, the Lord Advocate, engages regularly in international conferences for prosecutors and, given our separate jurisdiction, he adds a distinctive Scottish dimension. All ministers have a responsibility for ensuring that, where our portfolios have an international dimension, we are alert to it and seize it as an opportunity to promote Scotland.
My portfolio makes huge sense. I am involved directly in the work of SDI and in considering how to take advantage of the strengths of our higher and further education sectors by encouraging foreign students to come to Scotland and encouraging Scottish universities to engage in partnerships with bodies outwith Scotland. Patricia Ferguson, the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, has clear responsibilities. The committee will hear later from Tom McCabe, who has responsibility for co-ordination. Tartan day is a specific issue. Obviously, the first secretary in the Washington embassy has an important role in that, but we try to ensure that SDI picks up the opportunities for business and we have asked universities to take advantage of the coming tartan day. It is a fair point that a number of bodies exist and that we must co-ordinate, but as I said in answer to the convener, the co-ordination is improving.
The job of co-ordination is massive, which is what I was trying to say. Can you mention any ways in which you think co-ordination could be improved, or are you leaving that up to Mr McCabe?
It is important that all parts of the Executive talk to one another. Our international strategy brings many of the strands together and supplements our European strategy, which was published earlier this year. The international strategy was brought to the Cabinet and has the buy-in of all ministers; it lays out the framework within which a number of initiatives operate. It would not make sense to submerge the focus of SDI's work on promoting enterprise by pretending that it should be taken in-house into a completely different department.
Moving on to your other responsibility, on the higher education and research side, we heard a suggestion from Sir Neil MacCormick about a range of Commonwealth scholarships along the same lines as the Rhodes scholarships. I would be interested in your comments on that. We need to know how well Universities Scotland is promoting education and research links in overseas markets and whether we have something to learn from universities elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The University of Nottingham has recently set up a campus overseas, and that is something that a lot of Australian universities, with their proximity to south-east Asia, have done. It is also something that American universities have done. Is that something that we should consider doing under the umbrella of Universities Scotland? It would not simply be about attracting postgraduates and undergraduates here, but it would involve setting up campuses overseas under the Scottish higher education brand.
The answer that I have given before—and one that bears a lot of truth—is that there is always scope to do better. Let me give a good example. The University of Edinburgh has links with Stanford University in the science of language. The Executive has backed that and the quality of the research work that is being done in the partnership between those two universities is of a very high level. We know that the Royal Society of Edinburgh has links with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and our universities have a number of individual contacts.
In addition, as you will be aware, the SQA is working to promote our education system in China, which represents a considerable opportunity for Scottish education. The aim is primarily to promote Scottish education overseas, rather than necessarily to generate income, but I have no doubt that the initiative can also be revenue generating. There is an opportunity for SQA to brand and market its qualifications, particularly with regard to the higher national diploma. That promotion has a double purpose, as it takes Scottish education and a Scottish brand into a huge market, but the Chinese side sees it as a stepping stone that will allow its students to get the kind of qualification that will give them easier access to degree courses in the United Kingdom. It is a two-way process. We are taking our education system out there and we have the opportunity to bring Chinese scholars back to Scotland.
With specific regard to the scholarships that were mentioned, we contribute to the FCO British Chevening and Marshall scholarship schemes. In fact, we have just increased our contribution to the Chevening scholarship. It has also been announced that, as part of the fresh talent initiative, the Scottish international scholarship programme for overseas students will be operational by October next year and will provide the opportunity for 22 overseas graduates to combine a year of postgraduate study with a year of work experience. The breakdown will be as follows: nine places for China; six for India; two for Australia; one for New Zealand; two for South Africa; and two for Singapore.
Do you agree that a command of modern languages is very important for current and future generations of Scots and for our commercial and business success across the world? Do you agree with Sir Neil MacCormick that there is currently a crisis in modern languages? What will the Executive do to reverse the decline that was recently confirmed by two emeritus professors, one of French and one of German, in a study of modern languages in Scotland?
I share your view that modern languages are important. One should not always embrace someone else's phraseology and confirm a crisis, so I shall stop short of doing that. Mr Peacock is more directly responsible for what goes on in schools, but I can say that we recognise the importance of modern languages, and programmes to promote them, in schools. I think that one of your papers mentioned the mobility of Scottish students and made the point that not many Scottish students take the opportunity to study abroad and that, when they do, they often go to the old Commonwealth countries, where language is easier. Perhaps that underlines the need for us to ensure that the importance of learning foreign languages is recognised.
You might have heard Neil MacCormick refer to the value to Scotland of good will from people who have been students here or who have had good experiences here in their youth. It might be worth exploring that in the much more open, mobile world in which we are living. In common with many young people, my son is just coming back from a long time in Australia, and I suspect that he will have been rubbing shoulders or drinking beer—whatever students do—with people from all over the planet, including future movers and shakers who will always have good will towards Australia. Does the Executive intend to actively encourage young people from around the world to spend some of their time here? You referred to a fairly small number of scholarships for students, but there is a limit to how far that can go. Let us have as many people studying in Scotland as possible but, in addition to that, how about promoting Scotland as a destination for gap months or years? Do you find the idea of building on that culture attractive and could we do it?
Very much so. The number of scholarships is admittedly small but, as I indicated in my opening remarks, the total number of students from non-EU countries studying in Scotland has increased significantly. In 1997-98, it was just over 10,000, but in 2002-03 it was almost 15,400, which is a significant increase. The work that the SQA is doing in China will, if it can be taken through to completion, provide an opportunity for more students to come to Scotland. The interactive university's work is also reaching out into markets that could provide opportunities for young people to come to Scotland as part of the learning experience.
More generally, I also accept—and it is part of our promotion of Scotland—that Scotland is a good place to which to come to study, do business, work or have a good time.
Scotland is a good place to have a good time? Surely not!
We have considerable assets that no one can take away from us. For example, very close to our cities, where people can study, are remarkable recreational areas.
Such as East Lothian. Thank you very much—you are doing well.
Yes, the golf courses of East Lothian are highly marketable; that is a serious point. We also have a vibrant cultural scene. It depends on one's tastes, but many tastes are catered for at a high level of quality.
Thank you very much, Mr Wallace. We look forward to the Executive's response to our committee inquiry, the report of which will be published in January, I suspect. We hope that it will contribute to the further development of international strategy and related matters.
I suspend the committee until 4 o'clock to allow us to change over witnesses.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—