European and External Relations Committee, 07 Dec 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 7, 2004

Official Report 339KB pdf

---

Promoting Scotland Worldwide Inquiry and Scottish Executive International Strategy

I welcome Tom McCabe, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, to the committee for agenda items 3, 4 and 5. I invite Mr McCabe to introduce his colleagues and to make an opening statement on the promotion of Scotland. When we move to questions, I suspect that we will stray into item 4, which is on the international strategy, because there is some common ground between the headings. However, I want to keep items 3 and 4 distinct from item 5 on the EU presidency and the G8 summit, because there are quite specific issues to discuss on that.

Thank you, convener. Good afternoon, everyone. I am accompanied by Paul Brady, John Henderson and Louise MacDonald from the international group and by John Brown from our tourism section. I appreciate the opportunity to come along to the committee this afternoon to speak about a range of important subjects and I look forward to my further engagement with the committee during the months to come.

As you said, convener, we are beginning with the promotion of Scotland, but all our international activity plays a part in promoting Scotland around the world. It is important to stress that Scotland has some important advantages in international work. We are well known for a country of our size and I think that we are well liked. We have a history of global engagement and we have been the subject of genuine international interest in recent years because of our political renewal. We are part of the United Kingdom, which is one of the world's most globally engaged and influential countries. That is our starting point.

It is now up to us in Scotland to make the most of those advantages in the service of Scotland's interests. Devolution has given us an unprecedented opportunity to focus on what is good for Scotland and how we can pursue it. Since devolution, our work has been characterised by increasing overseas activity in the service of Scotland and increasing focus on the strategic fundamentals—the why, where and how of promoting Scotland internationally. I hope that that was demonstrated in the evidence that the Executive submitted to the committee's inquiry last year, but we have since gone a stage further, with the publication of the Executive's international strategy.

We stress that, in our view, the strategy is an important step forward. It provides a solid base on which to build the full range of our international work. The strategy shows that the work that we do internationally is done not for its own sake but because it serves the aims that we have set out in the Executive's 2003 partnership agreement.

During this parliamentary session, the Executive has taken a number of top-line initiatives to promote Scotland. The publication of the international strategy is one step, but we have also launched the fresh talent initiative to attract new Scots to live, work and study in Scotland. Under the initiative, we want to attract people from outside Scotland to come here to live and work and to contribute to Scotland's economy.

The document "New Scots: Attracting Fresh Talent to Meet the Challenge of Growth" sets out a range of proposals to implement the initiative, including the establishment of a relocation advisory service. We have made substantial progress on our fresh talent commitments. The relocation advisory service is now fully operational as a one-stop shop for information and assistance for anyone considering moving to Scotland. Although we still have to hold an official launch, the services provided have already enjoyed strong interest. We will ensure that we raise awareness of the service overseas by carrying on with the work on Scotland's international image.

As you heard a few moments ago from the Deputy First Minister, the First Minister has launched the Scottish international scholarship programme, which provides 22 scholarships for people from six countries to come and study in Scotland. Moreover, the fresh talent Scotland scheme, which will be in operation from the summer of 2005, will allow international students from Scottish institutions to remain and work in Scotland for up to two years after graduation. Those initiatives will combine to raise Scotland's profile as a premier destination for people to live and work.

During the summer, the First Minister launched a new initiative to promote Scotland's international image. He emphasised that, while embracing our history and heritage and other positive perceptions about Scotland, we need to bring Scotland's international image up to date and showcase the many facets of contemporary Scotland that make this a great small country. In our view, we need to position today's Scotland as being relevant to the 21st century world.

In the initial stage, we have undertaken a considerable amount of proactive work to position Scotland internationally. That has included the development of a new website—scotlandistheplace.com—and familiarisation visits for journalists and feature writers, from 10 countries currently, to help them to see Scotland in a different light. The work involves re-energising our international network, including FCO posts around the world. It also helps us to make the most of events such as the festival fringe and Edinburgh's hogmanay.

Promoting Scotland is a high priority for the Executive, but it is clearly not something that the Executive could or should do on its own. Success depends on many agencies, as well as on the Executive. The strategy emphasises that partnership approach. We work with bodies not only in Scotland, including the Parliament and this committee, but in the UK and worldwide.

Whatever else the strategy is, it must not be a tick-box exercise. We recognise that the promotion of Scotland will never be complete and that there is no textbook way of promoting a country's interests. We recognise that we need to learn from what other countries have done, but Scotland is its own country and, inevitably, it is breaking new ground in its new constitutional arrangements. We are determined to be open about what works and are equally determined to be realistic and open, as a result of experience, about what has been less useful.

The committee's inquiry is part of an overall process. I know that the inquiry has gone on for a considerable time, but I hope that, when it finishes, you will be able to provide the Executive with insights that contribute positively to the overall effort of promoting Scotland around the world.

I am sure that the committee will endeavour to do exactly that.

I have a slight bee in my bonnet, minister. The one conclusion that I have come to since I have been a member of the committee is that you have too many jobs. I know that, coming from me, that might sound a bit rich, but never mind. I am not talking about you personally. I discussed the issue with your predecessor, too, who had some sympathy with what I am saying. He said that there was no problem with policy, as there are lots of capable officials who can produce the papers and so on, but that there was a problem with the personal side, which involves getting to places, meeting people and doing the kind of networking that is needed to ensure that Scotland can take its place in the system.

I appreciate that your role is to co-ordinate the work and that each minister has to mainstream their department's work into a wider or European dimension, but I cannot help but come to the conclusion that, given that you have finances and public services to run, you will face difficulties in relation to your ability physically to do what needs to be done with regard to the external relations portfolio. Obviously, you cannot answer that except by saying that everything is okay, but do you see any problem such as the one that I have outlined? If so, how could we deal with it? My view is that we should have someone who is much more focused on that one issue, but you might have another idea.

You made reference to your situation and, from what I read in the papers, you are quite good at negotiating rates of pay. If you can give me any advice in that regard, I would be more than happy.

You are right to point out that the portfolio is wide. I am in the early stages of my post and I think that, over time, I will form views on the basis of experience and will make recommendations to the First Minister if I have any to make. However, my first impressions are that the functions contained in the portfolio are doable. I have a co-ordinating role with regard to international activity.

There is a limit to the amount of time that any minister can spend engaging with people either in this country or abroad and there is a strength in having more than one minister focusing on these activities. In a previous evidence-taking session, Mr Raffan referred to the fact that a number of ministers are involved. That helps to attain a level of engagement in various countries of the world and with people throughout the UK. However, it is important that we retain within one portfolio the ability to take an overarching look at all those activities and to assess the total sum of that activity. In the same way that it is important to try to ensure that, in our expenditure, we apply cross-cutting principles to ensure that we gain the maximum return on any expenditure, it is important that someone should take a wider view of the range of activities to ensure that those activities are properly co-ordinated and that their total sum gives us an adequate return.

I am encouraged to hear you say that if, after you have held the portfolio for longer, you believe that the current arrangements do not offer the best approach, you will be prepared to say so. Some of us have real reservations about the matter—I just share that with you.

I appreciate the way in which you make the point. Of course, there is a dilemma, because some members of the Parliament say that there are already too many Executive ministers. The more we subdivide, the more we will be criticised. Perhaps as the current constitutional arrangements mature, the standard of debate will mature, too.

I have been Minister for Parliament and Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care and I have held my current portfolio for nearly three months. When I consider the volume of work with which ministers must deal, I honestly wonder how, in the set-up prior to 1999, three or four ministers could have had any effective political control over major decisions. Of course, the new constitutional arrangements give us the opportunity to focus on areas that we consider to be important to Scotland and that perhaps did not receive the proper attention under the previous arrangement.

We will deal with the point that Mr Jackson raised before moving on. I will allow a question from Keith Raffan, if it covers the same ground.

It follows from Gordon Jackson's point. I know that you can give only a rough estimate, minister, but what proportion of your time is spent on your co-ordinating role and responsibilities in external relations?

It is difficult to give a precise answer when I am under three months into the post.

Can you give a rough indication?

During the past three months, I visited Prague and spoke to a global summit on public-private partnerships. We are discussing a useful spin-off from that visit. I think that I have been to London three times since taking on the post, to take part in the meetings of the joint ministerial committee on Europe, which are held sometimes in the House of Commons and sometimes elsewhere in London. There has been a fair degree of involvement. However, that must be considered in context: when I took over the portfolio, we were involved in the launch of the major strategy on efficient government and we are currently heavily focused on the local government settlement and the announcement of non-domestic rates. Time-specific issues need to be resolved. After the turn of the year, I might be able to take a better view on how my time will be split across different parts of the portfolio.

The Scottish Executive's written submission indicates that you meet officials from

"the three Executive Divisions most closely involved in"

external relations. It says that you have

"fortnightly meetings with officials to review progress."

Do those meetings happen regularly on the morning or afternoon of the same day of the week?

The meetings are regular at the moment. However, I am still working to a diary that is dictated by inherited commitments; after the turn of the year, I want my meetings schedule to be determined by my priorities. To be blunt, I also want my diary to permit me to have a proper balance in my life—that should be the case for all ministers.

You are preaching to the converted.

Are the fortnightly meetings sufficient?

Up to now they have been sufficient for the level of involvement, but I do not know whether I will conclude in the months to come that that pattern should be maintained. The jury is out on that.

I have a further point. In your opening statement, you mentioned the relocation advisory service—

I will bring you in later if you want to ask about that, but can we stick with the point about the minister's portfolio just now?

My point follows from the point that Gordon Jackson raised and I should say at the outset that I do not agree with him. Robin Cook shared his experience of the debate in London in the past decade, in which Westminster rapidly moved away from the idea of a single department for Europe.

Both Robin Cook and Jim Wallace used the word "mainstreaming". To cite an example from the past few months, the previous Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development took it upon himself to go around the European capitals campaigning on behalf of the salmon industry. He and his officials did a good bit of work before the relevant ministers and officials got to Brussels, where decisions were ultimately taken.

Minister, you have given a commitment to Gordon Jackson to evaluate the workload and how it might best be divvied up, but could you also give a commitment to examine the issue of mainstreaming? If you further embed mainstreaming and, by definition, lessen your burden so that you can spend more time on strategic issues, how will you be able to promote the issue of ministers taking upon themselves responsibilities relating to education, justice, the environment and so on in the external relations context?

For that to happen, someone—perhaps me—would have to take a view on the total sum of our activities and to examine what ministers are doing, by holding regular bilateral meetings with portfolio colleagues, which will happen in any event in a number of areas. We will need to consider whether we are satisfied that our activity is sufficient to service our overall aims.

There is a certain irony in this debate. We spend a great deal of our time saying that Europe is not about foreign affairs but about domestic policy and refer many of our committee papers to other committees of this Parliament. If that is the case—and I return to Alasdair Morrison's point about mainstreaming—surely it is almost a necessary evil that we will have ministers across the board involved in European policy. However, the separate issue, which Keith Raffan and Gordon Jackson are raising, relates to the need to ensure that there is time for the co-ordinating role. We have talked, in the past, about having six or seven ministers involved. However, it seems to me that we are always going to have six or seven ministers involved. I invite the minister to comment on that.

I hope that I did not say anything different from that. If we are to engage seriously at the proper level, it is important that a range of ministers is involved. I am not particularly keen on making analogies with Westminster, but I point out that the FCO does not do everything in terms of engagement with other parts of the EU and the rest of the world. That would be impossible. In the totality of the ministerial effort, there will always be work that contributes to the overall effort. It is only common sense that that should be the case.

What duties do you carry out in relation to external affairs that are distinct from those carried out by the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport?

Do you mean specifically with regard to Europe?

I am interested in the division of ministerial responsibilities. The Executive's structure chart says that you have a responsibility for external affairs and that the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport also has a responsibility for external affairs. I am interested to know what you do and what she does.

There are distinct differences. For example, the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport might represent Scotland at a Commonwealth games event that was held abroad and I would not get particularly involved in that. Conversely, as I mentioned a few moments ago, I recently attended a global PPP summit in Prague and spoke about the Executive's wider efforts across a number of portfolios to improve investment in our infrastructure. I would have an engagement in such areas. I would also, on behalf of the Executive, attend joint ministerial committee meetings in London and get involved in a range of other issues in a way that would complement or add value to the activities of other ministers.

I have a fair idea of what you do, but what does the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport do in relation to external affairs?

As the number of visitors to Scotland increases and as foreign Governments send representatives over, she will play a part in assisting me and meeting some of those people. She will play a part in the hospitality that goes with that and in the diplomatic effort that goes into ensuring that people feel that they have been made welcome in Scotland and that their presence is relevant. She assists in the overall effort to promote Scotland to the countries that show an interest in our new constitutional arrangements.

Thanks for that. I asked a parliamentary question about that on 12 October but I have yet to get an answer from the Executive. You might want to reflect on that point and ensure that the question is answered, given that it has been outstanding for a number of weeks.

Minister, were you involved in any of the meetings or functions relating to the important Regleg conference at the beginning of last week?

I discussed that with the First Minister. There was a clash on the day of the conference, which was when we launched the efficient government document.

The conference was over two days—the Monday and the Tuesday.

Yes, I know. There was also a joint ministerial committee meeting in London on the same day. I was pretty busy. The First Minister would, naturally, take the lead on such matters, but I discussed the initiative with him.

Has he reported back to you, so that you are informed in your co-ordinating role?

We have not had much time to talk, given the activities in which we were both involved last week, but I am sure that we will discuss the matter when time allows.

How often do you meet the First Minister to discuss external affairs issues?

I meet the First Minister on average once every 10 days for a specific discussion, not only on external affairs—

On your remit?

Yes.

How many of those meetings involve a discussion about external affairs? You have a number of responsibilities.

The meetings will involve such a discussion when it is required. If we required to discuss external affairs on every occasion, we would do so, but you would not want me to waste precious Government time discussing subjects when that was not required.

I am sure that you would never do that, Mr McCabe.

You referred to the fresh talent policy and the many positive actions that you have taken to drive it along. With the expansion of the European Union, we have many more European citizens. I am advised that 91,000 of them have come to the UK between May and September. Can you tell me how many of those individuals have come to live and work in Scotland?

I cannot tell you at the moment. I do not have an overall figure for that. We have received in excess of 500 inquiries about the relocation advisory service—that is before the launch. I do not know whether we would be in a position to collate the figure that you are after, but I will certainly make inquiries about how much of that information we can provide. I will do my best to pass on whatever information we have.

I would be grateful for that. It seems that there is a massive pool on which we can draw.

Earlier, Sir Neil MacCormick suggested that, within the European Union, we seem to be losing the Scottish voice that was heard previously among the senior civil servants who supported the directors general. That must be an area in which Scotland's influence could be significant. I assume that Scotland has played such a part in the past. What can be done now to ensure that our voice is maintained?

It is important that our voice in the European Union is not only maintained but strengthened. In some of the initiatives in which the First Minister has been involved, such as the Regleg conference, we are being recognised increasingly as one of the important legislative regions in Europe. The new constitutional treaty has more regard to legislative regions than was ever the case before. Through such initiatives, we will do all that we can to ensure that Scotland's voice, and indeed that of legislative regions within member states, is heard more loudly in the European Union. That is the rationale behind our approach to Europe, which is to ensure that through our new constitutional arrangements, as a major legislative region, we are far more able to have a say on and influence the development of European policy.

It is a pity that you did not manage to get along to the Regleg meetings. One of the impressions that I picked up was that there were concerns right across the board by regional members that the new constitution will mean a loss of devolved roles and greater centralisation. Will you consider the outcomes of, and the attitudes that were expressed at, the meetings and rethink the answer that you have just given?

I do not know whether I will rethink my answer, as I think that it was right.

I will pick up on the point that you made about attendance at the Regleg meetings and a point that I made earlier. Last Monday, I had a 19-and-a-half-hour day—

I am not criticising you for that.

Attending a joint ministerial committee meeting in London was part of the day's activities. We should not expect anyone to be in two places at one time. If there is First Minister representation at an event, he is more than able to cope with Scotland's interests. He does not need me at his back.

Phil Gallie and I must have been at different Regleg meetings, as my perception was that some people did not think that the constitution goes far enough. I am sure that he and I will have that debate on another day.

Minister, thank you for the submission, which is comprehensive and explanatory. Page 4 mentions sharing information with other devolved Administrations and sometimes representing them at meetings in "London or elsewhere", as those interests are sometimes similar. Will you expand on that comment a little? I am not sure exactly what the comment means, particularly its reference to "London or elsewhere".

While you are thinking about that, I will ask about another matter. Page 2 of the submission states:

"Three Divisions within the Executive are dedicated to external relations work".

You have pretty well covered your view of the ministerial situation, which you are going to look into. However, the three divisions include the external relations division, which has an EU and international relations branch, and the EU office in Brussels. How do those two divisions work together? What is the partnership between them? Structurally in the civil service, is there any reporting between them? Is there a direct management structure or are the divisions entirely separate? Might you also review that matter?

I will ask Paul Brady to say a few words about that. You have me at a loss with respect to page 4.

Can we have the reference again for Mr McCabe?

I was referring to the paragraph on page 4 that begins

"In pursuing its external relations objectives".

The end of that paragraph says:

"We also keep in close touch with colleagues in other Devolved Administrations, who often have similar concerns and are keen to share their experiences with us. We also share information with them and sometimes represent them at meetings in London or elsewhere".

I wondered whether the minister could expand on that a little.

By the time we have found the reference, I suspect that we will have shared the entire document with you, Mr McCabe.

I can only apologise for the fact that my photographic memory has not remembered that specific paragraph.

The document is very detailed, but I thought that the area was of interest. I would be interested to hear a little more about the matter.

Mr Brady will deal with the second issue.

I have been head of the international group for around six to eight months and have reviewed organisation. Having addressed some issues that have been raised—particularly the interconnection between the Brussels operation and the Edinburgh EU group—I decided, in consultation with Mr McCabe's predecessor, to have a joint head of the European operation in Brussels and Edinburgh, although, for obvious operational reasons, that person would spend the majority of their time in Brussels. Most of the action is in Brussels. That decision addresses the less-than-ideal interaction between the two teams, which was a weakness in the structure.

We have also rearranged other parts of the group since evidence was given to take account of the international image project, which the First Minister announced in July. Louise MacDonald is the head of that new team. John Henderson is the head of the international division, which deals with all other international promotion matters. Quite a lot of change has taken place. If the committee would find it helpful, I could offer written documentation on that.

It would help to have an up-to-date description. Could you put that in the context of how it fits into the Finance and Central Services Department?

I shall do that. The teams are part of Mr McCabe's department.

That linking is eminently sensible and will much improve matters.

Mr McCabe will answer the first question.

I refer again to the example of the joint ministerial committee on Europe. We and the other devolved Administrations have a dialogue. People will understand that we try to gather as much support as we can for our position. If another Administration could not attend a joint ministerial committee meeting and wished us to express a view on its behalf or to say that we had its support for a view, we would co-ordinate with each other so that we could say that with justification. On-going dialogue takes place.

You have collaborative partnership on common interests.

Yes. Sometimes, before a joint ministerial committee meeting, I meet my counterparts in the other devolved Administrations for a conversation. That happens as a matter of course.

You are also the minister responsible for finance. I am interested in how the money that is allocated to external relations matters is prioritised in the various departments. At times, conflicts must arise over whether money should be spent on tourism or on the fresh talent initiative, for example. Does a mechanism exist for deciding how to spend money?

Each Executive department has a budget, but I also control a central budget from my department. I oversee and co-ordinate some expenditure in other departments. Through the bilateral contact that I mentioned, I ensure that expenditure by each department contributes to our overall aims. As I said, the budget that I control in my department provides the ability to direct activities.

Can you give us an idea of how much was spent last year?

I do not know last year's figure. From this year onwards, I believe that the figure is just over £4 million.

I know that you have been in your post for only three months, but are you satisfied that value for money is being achieved?

At this point, I cannot say honestly that I know the answer. I will assess that over time. We may well expand our external relations activities. As with any public expenditure area that we expand, we have an obligation to ensure the right return for the money that we invest.

Is the £4 million spent on external affairs?

That money is spent on promoting Scotland.

So it is not the sum total for the organogram that you will give us of the teams that you talked about, such as the external relations division. Is that figure just for the promotion of Scotland division?

No. The figure is the total sum.

Does the figure include the promotion of Scotland division, the EU office and the external relations division?

Yes.

That is helpful.

In your introduction, you referred to the relocation advisory service. You said in response to Phil Gallie that 500 inquiries had been made. Will you give us an idea of where inquiries have come from?

Many came from Poland.

The highest number has come from the States, followed by India and Poland. About 650 individuals have contacted the service.

You said that the service has not been formally launched yet. When will it be formally launched and how are you marketing it?

If truth be told, we have probably been a bit low key over the past few weeks because the staff only moved into post at the beginning of October. We had to give them time to bed in.

How many staff are there and where is the service based?

The service is based at Meridian Court in Glasgow and has a staff of six, two of whom are immigration specialists. We plan to launch the service later this month. The marketing has been very low key. We sent out some brochures on fresh talent to all our Foreign and Commonwealth Office offices early on. The brochures had a little reply coupon, and some inquiries are coming through that means. As we have not been marketing the service it is very encouraging that people are finding their way to us.

The six members of staff must be pretty overwhelmed, having received 650 inquiries. No wonder your marketing is low key. Will you increase the number of staff?

We already have plans for an additional member of staff. That person will give specific help and advice to Scottish employers that are looking to recruit people from overseas. Most of the inquiries will come over the web. The advantage of that is that it gives us the chance to look for areas of commonality across questions so that we can more readily package answers. That gives us flexibility because of the way in which the inquiries are coming in.

Can you ensure that the same information is available to us as is available to embassies, high commissions and so on?

Certainly.

It would be helpful if that information were made available to all members. I know of one or two people who would like to contact the service.

A point was well made earlier about communication. The brochures that have gone out to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are for its use and distribution. That is part of the chain of communication that is required. Staff who process visas in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will need substantively more detailed information than staff in other offices. We will certainly tailor the information to particular people.

I have a further question about how the Executive effectively beds the fresh talent initiative into the whole range of Government activities. Louise MacDonald has given us an example of the importance of staff within the immigration service having a superior knowledge of some of the detail. In a range of different sectors of the economy—such as universities and housing organisations—a need to buy into the fresh talent initiative will be essential if the initiative is to succeed. To what extent has that work been undertaken by the team that is based in Meridian Court, or is there a cross-cutting Government effort to ensure that the initiative beds in well and is part of the general outlook of Scottish Government?

The initiative is a large and important piece of work. We would not expect the team as it is currently constructed—it is a team of six people, although it will increase to a degree as the months pass—to take on the totality of that work. It is important that different ministerial portfolios support the overall effort on fresh talent. For example, on housing, we would look to the communities portfolio to give assistance in that area and we would look to other portfolios to see what contribution they can make.

So the work would be led from a ministerial level.

Yes. It would have to be.

I dread to use the phrase "waiting time", as it can be a little ominous for the Executive in other spheres. Nevertheless, what waiting time do the 650 applicants face before they receive a response? The waiting time must be quite considerable if there are six people dealing with the inquiries.

Most inquiries are dealt with within a day or, at most, two days. Sometimes the length of the wait will be influenced by the time difference, depending on when an inquiry comes in. The turnaround is pretty fast and we are getting some very positive feedback from the customers to whom we have responded.

It sounds as if people are working 19-and-a-half-hour days.

Some long days have been known.

There is, of course, the advantage of technology.

It is important that we do not overstretch ourselves and diminish the regard in which the service is held by going too far, too fast and disappointing people. It is important that we move this along at the proper pace. That is why we have not yet held the official launch. We want to ensure that the systems are bedded in properly and that any difficulties with those systems have been revealed before we step up the pace. For instance, rather than require people to come to the service, members of staff might be able to hold surgeries in places such as universities. There are ways in which we can maximise their time and effort.

So surgeries might be held in Edinburgh, for example.

Yes.

I do not mean to move us off target, but I am surprised that the national sources for the applications are the USA, India and Poland. Given that Poland seems to be the only EU country from which any applications have been submitted, let me repeat my earlier question. Why are we not attracting people from the enlarged European Union?

Poland is not necessarily the only EU country from which applications have been received. We listed Poland as an example of one of the major countries, but other European countries are involved. We are as keen as anyone to attract people from the accession states and we already see the value of engaging with them. That was one reason for my visit to Prague a few weeks ago, where I spoke about Scotland's experience of public-private partnerships. Many accession states are eager to improve their infrastructure at some pace, so they are keen to learn the lessons that we have already learned and import some of our experience. We were keen to be involved in that in Prague and we are keen to be similarly involved in other accession states too.

I can clarify that inquiries have been received from more than 70 countries, but the third highest number came from Poland.

Thank you for that helpful clarification.

We have talked a great deal about the need for a co-ordinating role—which, if my understanding is correct, is Mr McCabe's responsibility—to oversee the many organisations such as VisitScotland and SDI that are involved in the promotion of Scotland overseas. However, in the course of our inquiry we have heard criticism to the effect that too many organisations are involved, co-ordination is not as strong as it should be and the Scottish international forum is too unwieldy an organisation to deliver what is needed. What are the Executive's future priorities for the Scottish international forum? How does the concept relate to the involvement of other departments?

Also, will the minister share with us how potential conflicts between the tourism lobby and the economic development lobby will be resolved if there are competing priorities on the message that should be formulated to promote Scotland and on the mechanisms that will be used for doing that?

The Scottish international forum is clearly important. I have not necessarily heard that it is unwieldy. The forum promotes communication among the different bodies and it helps them to understand the different objectives that we are pursuing. Clearly, there is a great diversity of effort among those different organisations, but that may be a strength. Earlier, I heard a range of different organisations being listed—by Mr Raffan, I think—but that range at least shows the amount of effort that we are putting in. We need to reassure ourselves that all that effort is contributing to the same aim.

That is absolutely my point. I do not dispute the fact that a lot of effort is being put in, but does it have any cohesion? Given your responsibilities as Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, can you guarantee that we are receiving maximum value for money from the involvement of so many organisations?

As part of our work, we need a horizon-scanning exercise to look for any occasion on which there is a contradiction or conflict. Quite frankly, through ministerial direction where that is appropriate, we must make it clear that those who focus on their own area without regard to the greater good must mend their ways.

So you can foresee a situation in which ministerial direction might be utilised to keep people on message, as it were.

I do not know that we are talking about keeping people on message, but I certainly agree that ministerial direction could be appropriate on occasion. For instance, if there were clear evidence that our promotion of tourism in some way inhibited our economic development initiatives—although I cannot imagine how that would happen—there would be a clear case for me, given my portfolio, to have a pretty frank discussion with the other ministers to examine why that was happening and how we could fix it. That is just an example. Off the top of my head, I cannot think how tourism activities would act as an inhibitor to economic development. As long as no one becomes unnecessarily precious about the activities in their portfolio, if a body is not making its proper contribution, we would have responsibility to consider that and, where appropriate, take action. That is why we seek ministerial positions.

Will you share with the committee some of the future priorities for the forum?

One of my priorities is to confirm that the communication links are appropriate. I want to extract from the organisations that are represented on the forum how they feel about their involvement; whether they believe that they could make a greater contribution through the activities that their organisations promote; and whether they feel that the Executive takes proper account of their work. I also want to ensure that their work complements our wider strategy properly.

Given that the international strategy is a fairly general document that contains strategic priorities, is it translated into an operational guide for the various bodies? We can read the international strategy, but what practical measures come out of it? I suppose that I am asking whether there is a plan.

The strategy provides the foundation on which we can build; its aim is to put in place a three or four-year direction for our international activities and to establish the reasons why we carry out those activities. It is a broad document, but we must remember that we are at the beginning of the process. We decided deliberately to keep the strategy broad to allow us to learn from experience. Then we will hone down the strategy so that it relates to much more specific activities in our international work. Under the new constitutional arrangements, we sometimes have a tendency to seek all the answers all at once. That is well intentioned, but it cannot be done. We will find our answers by establishing a base, learning from experience and refining our aims. I hope that we will make progress in that way.

The information that the Executive submitted to the committee included a paper from Susan Stewart, the first secretary for Scottish affairs at the British embassy in Washington DC. In her paper, she identified a priority of her office as being interaction with United States state legislators, as resources permit. Does the minister envisage the Scottish Executive being involved in that process? Is that a long, medium or short-term goal? Given that there are a number of states, how will the office identify which legislatures to contact and how to roll out the programme?

I envisage ministerial involvement at some level, but I will be realistic about the programme, particularly in the early stages. Given that the United States is huge, it makes sense to focus our work in that country, but we have still to consider in depth what the right focus is. Tartan day was mentioned earlier. I am keen to establish exactly what we get back from tartan day. It is well intentioned and was started for specific reasons—the United States Senate decided to celebrate Scottish links on a certain day. The activities have been extended, but we need to satisfy ourselves that we are focusing in a way that gives us an identifiable return that adds up to more than good will. I do not underestimate the value of good will—it is important—but we all have ambitions to take a step further than that by increasing our profile in the United States and perhaps thereby increasing the opportunities in the United States for individuals and companies from our country.

My perception of tartan day is that it has become very much an east-coast thing. If we want to capitalise on doing business in the United States we need to widen out our work into the west. Does the minister share that perspective?

We are talking about the world's most successful economy. The way ahead may be to focus on particular sectors. In that regard, we can see why there has been a focus on the east coast, because of the university connections. There may be other sectors that are relevant to other geographical areas in the United States. However, it is important that we do not take a scatter-gun approach, but instead focus on specific sectors and try to improve our performance.

The final question on this area is from Mr Raffan.

I have two brief points. First, we do not want to lengthen the minister's already long day, but will he examine how the Executive can work with the Parliament to improve and strengthen links with the National Conference of State Legislatures, with which a number of us have connections? Will he also bear in mind the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, a strong branch of which we have here?

Secondly, my main point is on something that Sir Neil MacCormick raises at the end of his written evidence and which we have not touched on today. He states:

"Scotland is also a Nordic country in many respects."

He also talks about our connection with the Nordic Council. The first delegation to this Parliament was from Norway, and one of the first conferences, in 1999 or 2000, was a successful meeting of the Nordic Council, yet the Executive took the decision not to get involved. Why? Is the Executive going to develop those links and, if so, how?

The short answer to the second question is that I do not know, because I was not involved in that decision.

Could you look into it?

Yes.

It is important. It was a great pity, given that we had such a focus on that first non-parliamentary event in the old chamber.

I will come back to you on that.

On your first point, I am more than happy to work with the committee. I believe—you would expect me to say nothing else—that if the Executive takes the view that it alone can find the answers, we will lose before we start. The work has to be done in conjunction with the Parliament, in which there is a lot of experience. It is important that we work with you. If at any time you do not think that that is happening sufficiently in my portfolio, I will be more than willing to engage in a discussion with the committee to see how we can improve things.

That is appreciated.

We had a good debate on October 7, prior to the official opening of the Parliament, which revolved around a potential international development role for the Executive, which is touched on in the international strategy. How does the minister view that role and how does he envisage it developing? Will the Executive encourage such a role? My questions relate to points that we will touch on later when we discuss the G8 summit, which is another aspect of promoting Scotland's reputation overseas.

An important part of that will be the exchange of skills and experience with countries that are far more challenged than our own. A £3 million fund has been established. Through the resources that are available, we can use those skills and that experience to best effect in the interests of people in other countries. We are very much at the start of that work. I sincerely hope that that area will develop and that we will be able to spend time sharing the advantages that we have in our country with people who are considerably more disadvantaged than we are.

How far away is the further information on what the Government intends to do on its international development role? Is it months away from being made public?

I would have thought that further information would be available by spring.