European and External Relations Committee, 29 Apr 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Official Report 265KB pdf

---

Scottish Government's International Framework

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the ninth meeting this year of the European and External Relations Committee. In particular, I welcome to the public gallery Angela Orthner, President of the Parliament of Upper Austria, and members of that Parliament's European committee. I—and, I am sure, other members—look forward to having discussions with them later on.

We have received apologies from Iain Smith and Alasdair Morgan. However, we welcome to the meeting Keith Brown as Mr Morgan's substitute.

The first item on our very busy agenda is evidence on the Scottish Government's international framework from the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, Linda Fabiani, who is accompanied by Deborah Smith, head of the Scottish Government's international division, and Daniel Kleinberg, who is from the international strategy and co-ordination branch.

I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to return to the committee to discuss the international framework, which was published last week. I first came to the committee to discuss the external affairs part of my portfolio in October last year, when I set out the flavour of our approach in the then new political landscape.

Today, I will say a few words about how that approach informs the Scottish Government's thinking as set out in the framework. The last time that I spoke to the committee, I stressed the continuity of our approach. The pursuit of trade, tourism and inward investment remains at the heart of what we do. Our reasons for having Scottish affairs offices in North America and China—chasing tourism, trade and inward investment—all, of course, persist. That work entails positioning Scotland as a great place to live, learn, visit, work and remain.

Part of that involves demonstrating the values that Scotland holds, which are:

"Creating the conditions for talented people to live, learn, visit, work and remain in Scotland—so that Scottish population growth matches EU average;

Bringing a sharp economic growth focus to the promotion of Scotland abroad—so that the Scottish GDP growth rate matches the UK's by 2011; and

Managing Scotland's reputation as a distinctive global identity, an independent minded and responsible nation at home and abroad and confident of its place in the world."

A marked difference from the previous Scottish Executive international strategy is that the framework document does not seek to list all the internationalised work that is going on throughout the Scottish Government. That is deliberate, and it builds on the comments that have been received in evidence sessions in this committee and in discussions that we have had with our partners and stakeholders. Our stakeholders want Government to be strategic and to get involved when there is good reason for it to do so. They do not want Government to be active for its own sake. The work of Government is to provide the conditions for exchange, and nothing that we do should risk hindering our stakeholders as they seek to make the civic, Scottish, United Kingdom, European Union or global partnerships that are the platform for their success.

Generally speaking, we should be ambitious for Scotland but modest about the role of Government in our approach to relations with others. The facts of globalisation demand perspective. Scotland's population is just over one third of 1 per cent of that of China. There are approximately twice as many residents of India in higher education as there are people in Scotland. If there was such a thing as an average country, it would have a population of 34 million and nearly 10 times the land area of Scotland.

Our scope to take part in international affairs is, of course, constrained by the current devolution settlement, but we have offices in Brussels and officials in UK embassies in Beijing and Washington who work solely on Scottish affairs. Alongside them, we have around 80 staff working in offices abroad for Scottish Development International—the arm of the Government that promotes international trade and inward investment. However, there are in total fewer than 100 people who are working professionally for us outside Scotland.

The key message is the need for flexible pragmatism. Our stakeholders look to Government for strategic direction; they want Government to be able to identify key points of leverage and to respond swiftly. The framework is, therefore, focused on aligning the actions and policies of the Scottish Government and other public sector actors to maximise their role in contributing to that performance. The last time that I gave evidence to the committee, I spoke about the new arrangements in our North America office, an early dividend of which was a focused and efficient Scotland week earlier this month.

Adopting a fleet-footed, agile approach does not mean that we are ceasing to work closely with our existing partners; it means that we have not sought to cement relationships with wide-ranging co-operation agreements. The cross-Government, cross-public sector approach paid dividends with last month's successful visit to China by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning.

One area in which I am particularly interested is culture. I am convinced that the strength of Scotland's contemporary culture is that although it embraces the traditional, it is also modern and vibrant; it is a living tradition that can tell the world in a powerful way that Scotland is a nation that is technologically advanced and innovative. Our culture provides us with the means to surprise and impress; it is a unique and special asset. Through creative Scotland, I am hopeful that we can capitalise more on that asset at home and in our contacts overseas.

An approach that is based on being more responsive requires the Scottish Government to work in an integrated way across the public sector. It also requires us to find new, agile ways of reaching out to civic society more widely to share information.

It is important, of course, that we continue to monitor and track the impacts of our activities. There will, therefore, be action plans on, in the first instance, international development policy, China and European engagement. In those action plans, we will continue to set out our detailed aims and targets for our key policies. Our stakeholders have told us repeatedly, however, that they want us to devote our energy to ensuring that there is a more responsive and cohesive approach, rather than one that focuses on a multiplicity of targets.

In summary, I point to the following parts of our approach as being new: an alignment of our resources around the Government's economic strategy targets; a focus on areas in which Scotland is genuinely excellent; a strategic, targeted and more business-focused and efficient Scotland week; more money for the international development fund; a willingness to challenge the UK line to ensure that Scotland's voice is heard, accompanied by a recognition that we should be proactive in using the UK resources that are at our disposal; and a confidence about focusing on Scotland's reputation as a nation, not a region.

Some of those changes are already under way and apparent—the coverage of the more focused Scotland week is a good start. Others will take a little longer, as we take the time to work across and beyond Government. I will, of course, happily keep the committee informed of progress.

I will start the question-and-answer session by making a comment on the action plan on European engagement. The committee welcomes the Scottish Government's proposals for engagement with the committee, in particular, through identification of the European Union priorities and through subsequent monitoring and evaluation. However, from her appearance before the committee on 11 March, the minister will be aware that the committee has real concerns about our ability to carry out effective scrutiny of the Scottish Government's role throughout the European legislative process. There is a need to develop formal processes that address that issue and we therefore welcome the minister's willingness to meet me and the deputy convener to take those matters forward in the first instance.

I will now move on to questions on the international framework.

In developing the international framework, has the Scottish Government examined strategies that have been produced by comparator countries or, indeed, regions?

Work was carried out on that throughout the previous session as well as during this one. In session 2, the European and External Relations Committee carried out comparative work on the economy and how it is possible to specialise in particular aspects. I will ask Daniel Kleinberg to go into the detail of the work that is being done at official level in that regard. First, however, I will say that Scotland is a very specific nation that has certain great advantages over other nations, and we have to capitalise on those advantages. We have to focus on what makes Scotland special and on what we are excellent at.

I back up what the minister says about Scotland's unique position. Recently, I have been talking to the Flemish Government, which is undertaking a review of its external affairs. Its independent academic consultants spoke to us about the approach that we had taken with our framework and in our previous work. The most obvious thing that emerged from that conversation was the specific circumstances that the Flemish Government and the Belgian Government are placed in with regard to the nature of their international work due to their constitutions. The conclusion of that conversation is that there is a great difference between our situation and theirs. Although there are some similarities, such as the importance of trade and inward investment and the work of Export Vlaanderen, it is difficult to draw direct comparisons.

Before I ask my question, I should declare an interest, as I am the deputy convener of the new cross-party group on China. At our inaugural meeting, I was pleasantly surprised by the number of people who turned up and the various areas of expertise of many of those people.

Minister, could you say something about the Scottish Government's China plan?

Of course. Our China plan will come under the overarching international framework. I am interested in what you said about there being a good turnout at the inaugural meeting of the cross-party group on China. I suspect that many of the people who turned up at that meeting also informed much of our thinking. People across sectors are doing great work in China.

The China plan is almost complete, but I was keen to ensure that it was informed by the experiences of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Hyslop, from her recent visit to China. Those experiences will be reflected in small changes that I am making to the plan. I hope that the plan will be published very soon, and I would be more than happy to discuss it with the cross-party group on China at some point.

I am grateful for that.

For the sake of completeness, minister, when will the international development plan, which is the other major plan, be published?

I expect it to be published very soon. I am aware that I will discuss it with the committee.

So it will be published before you come to the committee in May.

Yes.

I am interested in what you said about seeing a distinctive Scotland and reflecting our Scottishness overseas. Have you made up your mind yet about whether you see Scotland as having a specific brand or a number of different brands? Branding is important. During the recent trip to the United States and Canada—we all have our views on whether that trip worked—we seemed to be confused about whether we wanted to promote tartan, for example, or Scotland. What are your thoughts on that?

I will talk about Scotland week first. There was absolutely no confusion in our minds about what was being promoted during that week. Tartan day stands, of course, because it was set in North America, and we wanted to build on the success of that day with Scotland week. There is no denying the fact that we have great regard for Scotland's wonderful heritage and history and for many of the things that attract tourists to Scotland, but we also wanted to show Scotland as the successful and vibrant modern nation that it is in respect of its culture and its business and educational opportunities. We were not confused at all about what we were doing during Scotland week.

On branding, we are aware from what different sectors have told us that sometimes we must be specific in niche marketing. For example, VisitScotland may take an approach in China that differs from its approach in Canada. That said, it is crucial that there is an overarching team Scotland approach, certainly across all the publicly funded bodies, that we all talk to one another, that we are all aware of the strategic objectives, and that everything that we do feeds into those objectives. If such an approach is taken, Scotland can be strongly branded, and it will be a place that people will recognise and will want to come to for the reasons with which we try to attract them.

The confusion may have been more among our American and Canadian cousins, who saw tartan as a strong brand. The Scottish Register of Tartans Bill has been introduced in the Parliament. At one level, we seem to value tartan, but when we were on the other side of the Atlantic this year, the Government seemed to be pulling back a little from promoting it.

That is interesting. I met representatives of Scottish heritage groups in the United States and Canada, and I do not deny that some people expressed concerns. I think that this is the 10th year in which there has been a tartan day. The previous Administration built a tartan week around the day in the past couple of years—the tradition has therefore not existed for decades. In the engagement with the people whom I spent time with, it was recognised that, despite some negative publicity—wherever that came from—it was not the Government's intent to pull back from promoting tartan.

I like to think that we made relationships and that people recognised that we are moving Scotland forward, with tartan as an inherent part of Scotland's heritage. I hope that the dialogue will be kept up. I have no doubt at all that, for next year's Scotland week in North America, we will have built up a relationship with people that will allow us to advance both causes properly.

Can you announce the results of the recent visit to the United States and Canada yet? Will you publish a document that details those results?

The First Minister made a statement on the visit. I could reiterate all the things that he said about the good media coverage, in print and broadcasting. An evaluation is going on and the final costs are being brought together. At present, it looks as though the cost will be about half of the amount that the previous Administration spent on tartan week, as it was called, in 2007. I believe that, with that hugely focused approach, we got much better value for half the money.

Will we have a tangible evaluation in due course?

Yes. I give a commitment to send the evaluation to the committee for its interest, when we have finished it.

Page 14 of the "Action Plan on European Engagement" states:

"Scottish Ministers will seek to attend Council meetings".

That is all part of the Government's approach to standing up for Scotland. The minister will be aware that, since the Government took office, more than 60 European council meetings have been held, covering a wide range of policy issues, including education, enterprise, fisheries and agriculture. How many of those 60 meetings have ministers attended?

I will not pretend that I can give the exact figure off the top of my head. However, I can say that we wish to take our place at council meetings. Because we are a minority Government, that can be difficult when council meetings are held on days when ministers have to be in the Scottish Parliament to vote as part of our parliamentary group. That can cause problems. Generally, we have good reactions from ministers at Westminster to our attendance at council meetings. For example, Richard Lochhead worked closely with the fisheries minister at Westminster during the recent main round of talks. Some of the suggestions that our cabinet secretary made were taken on board. We achieved a fairly good result for Scotland through direct input into council meetings. The Lord Advocate has attended a few councils, as has the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. If you wish to have the figures and the justification for ministers' attendance, I can let you have that—I am sure that Daniel Kleinberg, Deborah Smith and their colleagues have them.

One interesting issue that I have raised with my counterpart in Westminster is that of the differing reactions of ministers there as to whether it is acceptable in their eyes for our ministers to attend council meetings. We need a much more standard procedure at Westminster than has been apparent so far.

A theme that runs through the action plan is that of ensuring that Scotland's voice is heard and influences the United Kingdom agenda on various policy matters. That is not really about attending meetings; it is about ensuring that there is influence over the policy agenda. I accept that the minister may not be able to give us the figures off the top of her head, but it would be helpful if she could provide the committee with an indication of how many council meetings ministers have attended.

Attendance at council meetings is not the only way in which we make progress on Scotland's agenda. There is constant dialogue between ministers in Edinburgh and London on issues that relate to our priorities, of which the committee is aware.

I understand that. I asked about the council meetings because attending them is mentioned as an objective on page 14 of the action plan.

In the action plan, you say that you want to improve how the joint ministerial committee on Europe runs. We have talked in the past about how the European and External Relations Committee could be involved in that agenda and how we might know what points you think are important enough to be raised at the JMCE. I do not think that the committee knows how often or when the JMCE meets. May we have a list of the dates of meetings? Are you willing to come to this committee before and after JMCE meetings, so that we can open up the black box, if you like, and there can be parliamentary scrutiny?

If Westminster gave us enough notice of meetings and took account of parliamentary work in Scotland I could let you have dates, but such information is not forthcoming. I wrote to David Miliband just before the most recent JMCE meeting—I received an answer at the meeting—to express discontent about the lack of organisation of JMCE meetings and to suggest that meetings be much more tailored to the devolved Administrations' activities. The Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government also expressed discontent.

Arrangements chop and change by the day. Just yesterday I received notice that the date of the June meeting has been unilaterally changed, probably for the fourth or fifth time. Much work needs to be done in that regard. The Foreign Secretary assured me in writing that he takes on board my criticisms and suggestions, so I hope that we will at least be able to let the committee know the dates of future meetings. I assure you that the problem is not at our end.

Minutes of JMCE meetings are confidential. We have won the right—I think for the first time—to put items on the agenda, as opposed to having to speak about matters under "any other business". That is an advance. I think that a concordat between the Scottish Government and Westminster, which was set up many years ago, governs the terms of meetings and deals with confidentiality.

You have indicated that you want to be open with the committee. How can there be parliamentary scrutiny in relation to the JMCE and other matters? In the action plan you talk about wanting to improve the transposition process and engage early with the European Commission. The committee has often indicated to you that it wants to be involved in parliamentary scrutiny of such activity. How do you intend to inform the committee about what the Government is doing, so that we can decide which issues to take up and what action to take to hold the Government to account?

The action plan and the Government's priorities are set out in detail, so the committee can hold me to account in that regard. I have said that I will meet the convener and the deputy convener to discuss the issues—I presume that that is an initiative of the committee so that we can see how we can deal with the stuff that you talked about. I am happy to have the meeting and the committee can then discuss a way forward.

The JMCE is a Government-to-Government organisation, the purpose of which is to achieve objectives. You must take on board that how such bodies operate is governed by concordats that were set up not by me but by the previous Administration.

This line of questioning is important, because when we took evidence I was struck by the number of organisations and institutions in Scotland that have great difficulty engaging in Europe. There is frustration that there is no protocol between the Scottish Government and the UK Government and that Scotland has no right of access on the issues. As you highlighted, whether and how engagement happens almost depends on who is in charge of the relevant portfolio in Westminster.

The Scottish Government must take that matter seriously and find a mechanism to deal with it. Scotland is the only devolved country in Europe with separate laws; other devolved areas in Europe lie within the confines of their nation states, although rights and responsibilities are devolved. We have distinct laws, but I do not think that anyone pays attention to that. The questions that were raised should be addressed, and some beef should be put into that. Can you respond to that?

There is a frustration, which is why this Government has been more open, transparent and consultative on our European action plan than has ever happened before. We give the committee far more detail than was given before. There is much more flexibility, for example, in relation to people suggesting matters that they think should be our priorities. Rather than write to the committee after the meeting, I take this opportunity to let the committee know that I have just agreed that a further priority on our Government's EU list should be the state-aid support investigation into Scottish ferry services, which the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change requested.

We are engaging much more and are much more open. I hope that our series of stakeholder events throughout the summer will reflect some of that; we will take on board what we are told. I have been in office for less than a year, but I am giving evidence to the committee for the fifth time. I have given out much more information than has ever been given out before and there has been much more engagement. In addition, I am bound by rules that were set by a previous Administration and, for eight years, many people did not bother kicking against them.

Given all that, I must say that I find certain comments strange. I assure the committee that it is our priority to give it as much information as possible about our European engagement. I will continue to do that in the way that I have been doing it.

I want to ask mainly about Scottish Development International, but I have two points to make about where I disagree with Irene Oldfather. First, we have loads of information to use in deciding where we want to focus our scrutiny of the Government with regard to the European and external affairs portfolio; in fact, if anything, there is potential overload. As I have said before, we wasted six months on the transposition inquiry. Looking back, I would not have made that a top priority.

Secondly, a clear distinction must be made between our role in scrutinising the Government, which is entirely legitimate and to which all members of the committee are obviously committed, and our role with regard to Government-to-Government relationships. I would not expect a minister of any political colour to come to the committee to tell us their negotiating position prior to a joint ministerial committee meeting with the UK Government or, indeed, with any other Government. However, after such meetings have taken place, the minister should come back to Parliament, as the minister has already done, and report on any substantive issues that the committee and Parliament need to be informed about. I certainly do not share Irene Oldfather's view that the minister should come to us and discuss the agenda for the joint ministerial committee before its meeting takes place. At the end of the day, much of what happens in the JMC is negotiation, and the last thing I want anyone in the Scottish Government to do is disclose their hand publicly before dealing with people at Westminster.

I want to ask the minister about Scottish Development International. As you will know, SDI has an impressive track record in many respects. Obviously, there has been public comment, particularly in The Scotsman, that a successor director to Martin Togneri has not been appointed, although he has been away for a fair time now. There are rumours, which appear mainly in The Scotsman, about the future of SDI and about its getting a wider role and so on. Can you clarify the current position, please?

The recruitment process continues. The position of director has a high profile and the successful candidate will play a huge part in promoting Scotland overseas and supporting the internationalisation of Scottish companies, so having absolutely the right candidate for the job is in everyone's interests. Lena Wilson, who is Scottish Enterprise's chief operating officer, is SDI's acting chief executive.

Will SDI's role be widened? One newspaper suggested last week that SDI's role and remit were being reviewed.

As with public bodies in general, we are looking for better co-ordination and alignment of SDI's activities with our international framework, so that we work together to achieve more of the team Scotland approach that I mentioned. If you have detailed questions about Scottish Enterprise or SDI, I can relay them to the appropriate cabinet secretary.

I just wanted to clarify the position, because speculation has appeared in the newspapers, but what you have said is what the Government has put in the public domain already.

We work across portfolios on all such issues—for example, I met Lena Wilson and some of her colleagues the other day to discuss how we are doing with the much closer alignment under the international framework. The committee knows how, in North America, Robin Naysmith has pulled together the activities of VisitScotland and SDI in Scotland's office in Washington.

You mentioned co-operation agreements with regions in Europe. What is the agreements' status? I think Scotland also has a co-operation agreement with Victoria in Australia. What is the future for that agreement?

From the start, we have made it clear that we do not necessarily believe that that co-operation model offers the best way to work with our partners, but that does not mean that we do not have on-going activities with some of those partners. I presume that the previous Administration made co-operation agreements because some work was worth progressing together. For example, the Victoria state agreement covers discussion—which continues—to learn from Victoria's experience of the Commonwealth games. We also have continuing dialogue with Catalonia on various issues. At a Bavarian event last summer, we had quite a big part to play, because of the agreement between us.

We do not, however, want to tie ourselves down to working only with some countries or regions. We want the pragmatism to which I referred, which will allow us to take the best advantage for Scotland wherever we may find it. Work continues under the agreement with Shandong, for example, but that should not stop us dealing with other parts of China, perhaps on a thematic basis, when to do so would be worth our while.

I apologise for arriving late, which has meant that I missed the minister's introduction.

You talked about Scottish ministers taking the lead and representing the UK at Council negotiations, perhaps on fisheries. In looking ahead to the Scottish Government's EU priorities in the coming months, do you see other subjects on which the Scottish Government could take the lead? If so, have you discussed with other parties in Parliament issues in respect of releasing ministers? You highlighted problems that that might pose, given that you have a minority Government.

I make it clear that Richard Lochhead did not take the lead in the negotiations, but he was there with the UK minister and was able to inform the UK's position fairly successfully.

Gil Paterson pointed out that this country has a distinct justice system, so it is always important to have engagement on justice issues.

As I have said, we have constant dialogue with our ministerial counterparts in Westminster, which is generally good. Most of the time, there is co-operation, which people do not hear about, but there is a stumbling block every so often, which—of course—everyone talks about. That will continue.

It is not for me to discuss some kind of pairing arrangement with other parties. I presume that that is what John Park is talking about. That would be for the Minister for Parliamentary Business to discuss with his business manager counterparts.

I presume that you have fed that idea into your own structures.

We always work closely together. Everything that we do as a Government crosses the borders. For example, all the cabinet secretaries had an input on the European action plan, as did the Minister for Parliamentary Business, who needs to know about it because he deals with the Committee of the Regions. There is great awareness of the matter.

Is there no specific issue on the horizon on which you envisage a Scottish minister taking the lead on EU priorities?

We think that we should always take the lead on fisheries. Because of Scotland's agricultural base in proportion to the rest of the UK, agriculture is another issue that it would be important to lead on. Every so often, things come up. Justice is a crucial issue as well.

When we had our round-table discussion on the international strategy, the importance of foreign language teaching emerged as a strong theme. The framework does not address that directly, but does the Government have a view on whether more foreign language teaching in Scotland would help Scots to operate more effectively on the international stage? If so, does it have any action in mind to deal with that?

That issue has been current for a long time. I am surprised that you raised it, convener, rather than Irene Oldfather, who has had a huge interest in the matter over the years.

The curriculum for excellence, which is part of Maureen Watt's schools portfolio, addresses foreign language teaching. Great cross-party interest in language teaching was shown in last week's debate on international education. Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, has talked about a Scottish baccalaureate for science and language. It is recognised that language teaching has to be developed. Part of the China plan that I can talk about—because it is a carry-over from the previous Administration—is the wish to have many more children in Scotland learning Mandarin to enable us to tap into the huge Chinese market. Language teaching is an issue of which we are aware. Of course, under our education system, it is up to local authorities to consider what is best for their areas through the curriculum for excellence, but language learning is encouraged, as it has been for some time.

The new Migration Advisory Committee has been set up and will have responsibility for compiling shortage occupation lists that might reflect Scotland's distinct demographic needs. Can you give us any more details of how the Scottish shortage occupation list will work, and can you also update us on how talks with the MAC have progressed?

I am sorry, but I am not able to give you the level of update that I think you want. I am more than happy to update you further from the letter on the fresh talent initiative that I sent to the committee in, I think, March. For a long time, there has been discussion about the difference that the UK is implementing in its points system. We were also worried that the unique advantage that the fresh talent initiative gave Scotland would be eroded, and there was lots of dialogue about that. We have lost the special year advantage, but we were glad that, after our representations, the concession was made that those graduating with higher national diplomas would be considered for the initiative and that a two-year period has been maintained—for all that it applies all over the UK—as opposed to the suggested one year.

I did not expect that the occupation list would be raised at the committee. As I said in Parliament recently, we can always rely on Ted Brocklebank to ask something that no one expected.

Will you be able to come back to us on the matter?

Yes, I certainly will.

I must be as eccentric as Ted Brocklebank, given that my question is similar to his—

Oh, no.

You said that you cannot say too much on the matter at the moment, minister, but my question is on the Government's general approach to the Scottish shortage occupation list. Will the Government try to influence things so that Scotland has a longer list? I am thinking of the enrichment that inward migration has brought to Scotland and our need for further inward migration in key areas. Is the Government trying to influence things in that way or do you not know enough about the UK Government list to say anything on the subject at present?

I am not willing to talk about the matter in great detail as yet, largely because I have not yet pulled together the views of my Cabinet colleagues, including on the effects on their portfolios. When the information is brought together—I refer specifically to John Swinney's portfolio—I will be able to report to the committee.

I should have asked this question at the outset, as it is on the development of the strategy. What level of consultation was held on the strategy? For example, did the Government set up a steering group or was the consultation done internally?

This committee held an interesting stakeholder event, the evidence from which we took on board. We also held a fairly high-level event in March with people from right across the sectors. I attended part of the event. I hold on-going discussions with various sectors of society, as do my colleagues, including the cabinet secretaries. All those daily or weekly discussions were fed into the development of the strategy. That is how we formulated the overarching framework.

Of course, as members of the committee know, underneath that strategic level, the draft European action plan is published and further consultation will be undertaken. On the China plan, an event was held with people who have worked in China for many years so that we could take advantage of their knowledge. There is also consultation of non-governmental organisations and the other representative groups in international development.

How will the Government judge the success of the framework? You were critical of the previous target-based approach.

Again, everything that we do is driven by the economic strategy. It sets the headline targets against which our success will be measured. On the first page of the international framework document, we highlight three ways in which we will do that: by ensuring that

"Scottish population growth matches EU average";

that

"the Scottish GDP growth rate matches the UK's by 2011";

and by managing

"Scotland's reputation as a distinctive global identity, an independent minded and responsible nation at home"

taking

"its place in the world."

Everything we do feeds into the economic strategy. Obviously, lower-level targets lie beneath that, each of which is monitored. However, today we are looking at the bigger picture. The international framework fits into the Government's economic strategy and everything goes towards achieving the targets that have been set under its headline indicators.

I have a couple of points, the first of which relates to EU budgets and co-operation agreements. In the papers, I find no mention of partnerships between schools in Scotland and those in, for example, Catalonia and Tuscany. Such education partnerships are a good way for people to understand the benefits of Europe. For example, a secondary school in my constituency twinned with an art college in Pisa. Young people from a very deprived area went to Pisa to learn art, language and so on. I am a little bit disappointed that the minister made no mention of that.

The minister gave the committee an update on co-operation agreements in the letter, but I am not clear where the Government is going with them. It is important that we do not lose some of the good initiatives under those bilateral agreements. Will you say something about that, minister? I will put my second point, but I will first let the minister answer that one.

As I said in my introductory comments, one of the differences in the framework is that we are not mapping everything that the Government does internationally. The framework is to be used as a strategic document so that other work can feed into it. For example, school engagements are going on in Fiona Hyslop's department and will be monitored and mapped there. There is also Maureen Watt's internet national education strategy. Those are important developments.

On co-operation agreements, there is no intention to throw the baby out with the bath water. As I said, we have engaged with Catalonia and Bavaria. We have also had regular contact with the German consul general in respect of North Rhine-Westphalia. Such contacts are on-going. I cannot remember off the top of my head, but I think that one of the agreements comes up for renewal in 2009. We will not cut people off; we will work with our partners under co-operation agreements to establish where both sides can get maximum advantage. For example, in the agreement with the state of Victoria, we recognised that we can get mutual benefit in respect of sport and culture. We will keep those relationships up, but we do not necessarily believe that it would be right for either partner—it is done in co-operation—to again sign up to a formal agreement.

Does not the minister envisage something such as that being included within political priorities and objectives? You mentioned that work is on-going in the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning's department, but obviously the political objectives cover a broad range of policy areas.

The matter is important in the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning's portfolio, and that is where it will be mapped. My international framework overarches the work of Government so that others can feed into it; it is a headline approach.

I have another question about the Scottish Government's long-term EU political objectives, and I would like a yes or no answer. I am a little confused by the statements on pages 6 and 7 of the action plan on European engagement. Page 6 refers to withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. Is it the Government's policy to withdraw from the common fisheries policy? I am sure that Ted Brocklebank wants to know the answer to that question as much as I do.

He has been consistent throughout.

I know what I want.

We believe that the CFP works against the interests of Scottish fishermen. We have always been up front about that.

So the policy is to withdraw from the CFP rather than to reform it.

We will, of course, push for reform. We have said previously that the CFP does not act in the interests of Scotland and others believe the same. We have always said that we think that the CFP should not be there, but we will work for reforms within the system to the benefit of Scotland. We will do what is best for Scotland by taking a pragmatic approach and asking, "What can we do to make the CFP better for Scotland?"

The action plan on European engagement is a draft to inform the consultation process. I hope that we will get lots of ideas and views from people, but we believe that the CFP should be radically reformed. We have never said otherwise.

Should the CFP be reformed or should Scotland withdraw from it?

Irene Oldfather would be the first to point out that Scotland cannot withdraw from the CFP because it is part of the UK and so is not a member state. Such a discussion would be pointless.

What is the minister's policy position? Should Scotland, in the Scottish Government's view, withdraw from the CFP?

Scotland cannot withdraw from the CFP. When Scotland is an independent nation in Europe, the decision will be taken according to what is best for Scotland. What else can I say?

That is a good point on which to end.

I thought so.

I thank the minister and her officials for coming to answer our questions. I suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow for a change of witnesses.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—