European and External Relations Committee, 09 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 9, 2003

Official Report 270KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive External Relations Strategy

The next set of questions is on the wider remit of external relations.

Minister, you said in your presentation that Scottish Executive external relations activities also cover relations with the UK Government. I find it interesting—almost intriguing—that the same adjective, "external", is used to describe relationships with the UK Government and relationships with the United States, Russia, the Republic of Ireland or any other sovereign state.

Can you tell us how that relationship with the UK Government works out in practice? Let us suppose that the Scottish Executive had a potential disagreement—let us say over the education of children at Dungavel—with the UK Government about which the Executive wanted to communicate at ministerial level with the UK Government. We know that education is a devolved matter and the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, but asylum and immigration are reserved matters and the responsibility of the UK Government. Would it simply be a case of Peter Peacock lifting the phone to speak to David Blunkett? Would the First Minister's office and your office have to be kept informed? What exactly is the role of your office in such matters?

Your interpretation of "external" is interesting. External relations include European matters and, of course, we are part of Europe. It is really a question of wording and semantics rather than intent, desire or policy and I do not think that you should read too much into the term "external"—it is simply a place to fit certain aspects of the Executive's policy and work.

I will not be drawn into discussion of the Dungavel issue, which may or may not come as a surprise to you, Dennis. On many issues, Scottish ministers continue to have dialogue with UK ministers by telephone, by letter, at meetings of the joint ministerial committee on Europe, at conferences and events, through officials and through official working parties. We engage with the UK Government in many different ways and seek to ensure that Scotland's views are represented. I am convinced that we have had some significant policy successes. I have mentioned the Hain paper as a good example of our influence over UK policy. I also have an overview of what is being discussed and I am copied into matters that relate to external relations, whether they involve the UK Government or anyone else.

I hope that that answers the question. However, I do not want to be drawn on the specific issue of Dungavel.

I would like to build on the theme that Dennis Canavan raised. How would the Executive respond if Charles Clarke or another UK minister made statements or pronouncements on matters that were devolved to the Executive and the Scottish Parliament?

The irony is that most of the people who advocate that position are those who would complain loudest if it happened in the other direction. However, that is politics and the way in which the world—it is a strange world sometimes—operates. I would not be happy if that happened, and I would take the matter up with colleagues. If it happened, I would be quick to respond.

Accepting the limitation of your resources and number of officials, as well as the demands of your other responsibilities, you have to focus on key objectives and be selective. We have established bilateral co-operative agreements with Catalonia, Tuscany, North Rhine-Westphalia and Bavaria. Do you plan any more such agreements? It appears to me—with my past experience—that we are some way behind the Welsh. They established connections with the motor regions of Europe—Lombardy, Rhône-Alpes, Baden-Württemberg and Catalonia—way back in the 1980s. We should ensure that we are at least keeping on a par with the Welsh.

My second point relates to the World Trade Organisation talks that will continue in Cancun tomorrow. Are we operating entirely through Patricia Hewitt of the Department of Trade and Industry or does the Executive have officials at those talks?

My third point relates to the Commonwealth. We hear a lot about tartan day, and I think that we sometimes get a bit bogged down with it. What about the other countries with which Scotland has traditionally and historically had long-term links? I am thinking of sub-Saharan Africa, India, Australia and New Zealand. An enormous number of visits are made to the Parliament by parliamentarians from those countries. I sit on the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and can tell you that Scotland has very strong connections with Commonwealth countries. For example, the African high commissioners were here for Commonwealth day, earlier this year. What are we doing to ensure that those connections are built on?

I would hate to be behind the Welsh in anything. We clearly have a job to do to ensure that that is not the case.

Through the ad hoc group of ministers, we are working to come up with our proposals and we will report to the committee in due course on where we want to place ourselves—not just in relation to the accession states, which I talked about earlier, but in relation to the regions of Europe such as Bavaria and Tuscany—and on the work that we have done, which I mentioned in my slide presentation. We are seeking opportunities to build up our positive engagement with Europe, in relation to which the First Minister's role in Regleg also offers some scope. We have used that positive engagement effectively, which is why the First Minister is taking that role, which will be of great benefit to Scotland.

We have more plans, but we seek to liaise with wider civic Scotland and particularly with the business community on how best to deliver an intervention that will make a difference to Scotland. We have nobody at the Cancun talks, but our officials have been assured that our views on any relevant matters will be presented by the DTI.

Other ministers and I have met a variety of visitors from Commonwealth nations. An item on our work schedule is enhancing and developing our approach to Commonwealth issues, but that is a question of resources and benefit. We must clinically examine the critical engagements that must happen, where we would like to do work and, to be blunt, where we can afford not to do work.

As I said, I took on my ministerial portfolio recently. I work with ministers through the ad hoc ministerial group to get the balance right. The Cabinet has discussed the subject. I do not want to tell tales out of school, but we will discuss the matter again to ensure that that critical engagement is correct.

Do we not have room to take the initiative and to be proactive on Erasmus mundus, which extends the Erasmus programme to third countries? Given that many citizens of Commonwealth countries are at universities and colleges of further and higher education in Scotland, we have the opportunity to take the initiative in Europe on that new programme.

I will pass on your view to Jim Wallace, who is responsible for dealing with that programme. Other educational opportunities are presented by e-learning, in which we can play a role that has a significant impact in Europe and abroad. I take your point that an opportunity is available, but we must resource it effectively. I would not like to engage in a half-hearted way that does not deliver on the original objectives and means that we do not deliver our end of the deal in any partnership. The key issue is prioritisation, but, as I said, I take your point and am happy to return to the committee on that issue.

I will follow up Keith Raffan's point about co-operation agreements. One problem that the committee has faced is that many regions have wanted to get in touch with us and enter into bilateral agreements or exchange information. The minister has said that priorities and a focus must be set. Is he thinking of establishing relevant criteria for the future, which the committee or the Parliament could share with the Executive? We could have most use from some co-operation agreements if the Parliament or the committee followed through on Executive links.

That is right. We must bear in mind our main objectives and link them with our priorities when an opportunity arises to make an agreement with a nation that is of economic advantage to Scotland, to transfer our experience and its benefits to other nations or to influence other sub-nation states in relation to what happens at the IGC or beyond. I would happily undertake work on criteria—the checklist of our agreed objectives and strategies—against which we could judge how our relationship with a nation would be of benefit. We would need that analysis as the basis for a proper decision.

Perhaps we can develop that good point later.

Indeed.

A recent report showed that Scotland's population is declining. Arguments continue over whether we should relax the immigration position, and concern is felt about the availability of skills and the work force to take us into the future. Has the Scottish Executive considered the situation that will follow EU enlargement? I refer not just to countries that are about to come into the EU, but to others that might join in the future, such as Romania and Bulgaria. Have any projections been done with regard to the likely movement of people from eastern European countries into Scotland following enlargement, and to the populations that would be involved?

My colleagues and I are not aware of any specific piece of work on that. That takes us into a broader discussion around immigration and the fresh talent initiative, which seeks to promote Scotland as an attractive place to come and work. We present Scotland as a good place in terms of quality of life, opportunity, education and environment for immigrants coming into the UK. The good things that we say to draw people to Scotland will help to tackle some of the demographic issues that you mentioned.

We should not be trying to take the best of the talent and trained people away from their countries—from European accession states or other countries in the world—because their nations need them. There is a fine balance to be struck. The First Minister referred to people legitimately coming to this country and being awarded the necessary status. Once they have fulfilled all the relevant criteria, we should make Scotland a destination for them. There are many qualified and trained people out there from whom we could benefit once they have been through the proper UK immigration processes.

I do not see a contradiction in the relationship between what the First Minister said about fresh talent and UK immigration policy. We should be telling asylum seekers who get the required status in the UK that there are opportunities in Scotland for their skills and for their families, with quality of life, education and so on, and that they should therefore consider coming to Scotland.

Do we not lose control of that with the forthcoming enlargement of the EU? Under an expanded single market, people from Romania or Bulgaria, for example, will be entitled to come here to find jobs. We will have no control over ensuring that talent stays in some of the backward countries in eastern Europe. Is it not worth at least considering what the effects of enlargement will be over the next few years? Is that not something that the Executive should be doing?

To be blunt, I am not sure, but I am happy to think about it. When being in the European Union has an impact in some of those developing countries—I do not mean "developing countries" in the traditional sense; I refer to the countries that are coming into the EU—opportunities should arise in those countries, with investment in infrastructure, education, training, universities and culture. That is something that the current EU nation states can, in a sense, deliver to those other European nations.

I do not see the situation in the same way as Phil Gallie does—I am not sure whether I share his view. The intention with the new opportunities that are to be created for economic development, employment, farming and industries that need to be modernised in those countries is to keep their good people there; it is not for us to try to soak them up here.

I was not trying to establish opinions; I was asking whether the Executive had researched the matter.

I doubt that that has been done, but I will come back and confirm that to you.

You mentioned the fresh talent initiative, which was launched seven months ago. Could you provide us with an update on that initiative? What resources have been put into it? Do you have to liaise on asylum and immigration policy, or have you made a point of contacting the UK Government about the issue, given that it will influence the Executive's ability to attract fresh talent to Scotland?

The Executive has a small working group—I cannot remember its name, but we can call it the fresh talent team for today—working away at how the policy can be rolled out. I am unaware of any discussion that members of the team might have had with the Home Office to date, but I will ask them about that specific area. There needs to be a separation not just of reserved and devolved responsibilities but of what the policy seeks to achieve.

Under the fresh talent initiative, we are seeking to develop and present Scotland as somewhere to work and prosper, where there are opportunities, with education available for children, access to higher education institutions and a high quality of life. That is separate from the harder issues around immigration, but it is a matter of how we sell on that strategy to those whom we might be seeking to attract. I will check with the fresh talent team about that, and I will tell you what discussions have been held with the Home Office to date, if any.

It would be helpful if you could come back to us on that.

No problem—will do.

I have a housekeeping question about tartan day. What protocols do the Executive and other Scottish agencies involved in tartan day have in place? How do we ensure that we do not unwittingly become embroiled with initiatives that, on the face of it, look completely innocent but actually involve quite sinister characters? Thankfully, Mr Trent Lott is no longer involved with tartan day but, though we may laugh about it, it is important to ensure that people like that are kept at a distance. They need to be kept away in the background when we are promoting Scotland. At one level, we obviously want Scotland to be promoted but, at the same time, we need to ensure that the people who sit at the table and are involved are not people like Trent Lott. How do the Executive, VisitScotland and SDI or whoever vet—for want of a better expression—the individuals from the other side of the Atlantic who so willingly show a desire to become involved with initiatives?

I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee that such situations will never arise. Of course, the Parliament also got in a bit of a fankle recently, but these things happen.

To answer the question, we seek to ensure that our intelligence and networks are effective enough for us to gain that information so that we do not end up in those situations. Hence, the Executive has a member of staff out in Washington and an office in Brussels. We have formal and informal networks to ensure that those situations should not arise. Sadly, there can be no such thing as a guarantee on that point, but we certainly would not repeat that situation. We seek to ensure that we have our reconnaissance absolutely spot on for some of those more difficult issues.

Further to the point that I raised about the WTO, I understand that we were represented at both official and ministerial level at the 2002 world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg. What criteria decide whether we are represented? Do we have to get the approval of the UK Government? It seems rather surprising that we were represented at ministerial level at that very important international conference but will not be represented in any way at the equally important WTO talks that begin tomorrow.

I am not saying that the WTO talks are not important, but we have responsibilities in devolved, not reserved areas. Given the Executive's functions, we had a clear role in sustainable development. We have strategies through the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, and there is also Ross Finnie's work, as well as the efforts of the First Minister and the Minister for Education and Young People. There was a clear justification—a clear reason and need—for us to be represented at the Johannesburg event.

There are two clear, important points about the international trade discussions. First, we need to acknowledge that the matter is for the UK. Secondly, however, our views are represented appropriately in terms of documentation, positions and influence.

The answer to the question about how we make that judgment is that it is made on the basis of which of our policy levers in Scotland comes into play in those discussions. For sustainable development, there are clearly many critical levers within Scotland. However, international trade relations are the responsibility of the DTI. Clearly, the issue affects us so our views are represented to that department, but we do not have the levers. I am not saying that we are not responsible for enterprise—we are—but international trade negotiations is an aspect for the UK Government, which we seek to influence through our normal channels.

So it was not a question of us asking to be represented and being turned down.

That is correct.

On a similar subject, I think that the partnership agreement refers to the Executive encouraging non-governmental organisations that work with disaster relief and promote development. What measures will be taken, or have been taken in the past few months, on that?

To be honest, I am not aware of any significant steps, but that does not mean that work is not being done. I apologise, but I will need to come back to you on that.

That would be helpful. We are coming to the end of agenda item 3. I will allow John Home Robertson to ask the final question.

My question is not entirely relevant, but I will try the minister anyway. I have been reminded that today is the 490th anniversary of the death of two of my forebears, the king and about 10,000 other Scots at the battle of Flodden, which was an example of catastrophic external relations with England and rather confused external relations with France. I hope that the minister will try to keep things on an even keel.

There are more up-to-date lessons than that, but you make a valid point.

I am pleased that that was the final question. I thank you and your officials for attending. In the spirit of your opening remarks, we look forward to a constructive and fruitful relationship in the coming months and even years. Many issues have arisen on which you said that you would get back to us. We are particularly interested in the IGC consultation and ideas to involve the public and get the debate going, as the committee has agreed to look at that area. As we are up against the clock, we would appreciate it if you could get back to us on your plans in that area, and on the other matters, in the near future. We will see you again before too long.

Thank you for your time.