Scottish Government's External Affairs Policies
Under agenda item 2, we will take evidence from the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture on the Scottish Government's external affairs policy. Members will note that the minister has previously appeared to present the Government's EU priorities and, therefore, we should limit our questions to the external affairs aspects of her remit.
I welcome Linda Fabiani to the committee, as well as the officials who are accompanying her: Daniel Kleinberg is the head of international strategy and co-ordination, and Lisa Bird is the head of international development. I invite the minister to make an opening statement. It has been suggested that 10 minutes would be the maximum time for that.
I shall speak quickly, convener.
I am pleased to attend this meeting to outline the Government's approach to its international activities. When we entered government, we said that we would take time to consider our international work. The Scottish Government has changed and with it have changed many of the basic features of the political landscape in which we all operate. Although Scotland remains a good and steady friend to our partners around the world, we are taking time to review how our international activities fit with our wider strategic objectives.
I would like to talk about three things. First, I will set out our thinking on what the Government wants from the broad sweep of our international activities, then I will talk about how we have moved forward in some of the specific areas of work. I will finish by outlining our next steps.
In our general approach, there is much that we will carry over from the work of the previous Government because, after all, we all agree that a good quality of life and a strong, fair and inclusive national identity are important if Scotland is to prosper in a global marketplace. We need to tell people about our strengths and we will work with partners across the public and private sectors to ensure that we position Scotland as a great place in which to live, learn, work, do business and invest. We will take steps to attract to Scotland the brightest and best talent, to support Scottish businesses overseas and to promote and invest in our tourism industry. We will work with the Scottish diaspora to make the most of Scotland's reputation worldwide. We remain committed to international development and we recognise Scotland's long-standing and historic role in international engagement.
If the points of similarity in our approach and aims are apparent, the first point of departure is also obvious. We are clear that Scotland could better develop its own voice and make a distinctive contribution by achieving independence. The committee knows that we think that Scotland would be better represented by having its own stronger voice in Europe. Just as we think that self-reliance is important in a European context, so we think that, in our general international work, Scotland can only benefit from the confidence that a responsible, independent mindset brings.
That is why we look to our near neighbours, such as Norway, Finland, Iceland, Ireland and Denmark. The performance of the arc of prosperity shows what independent small economies can achieve on the global stage when they take responsibility for their own affairs. Having a strong, competitive economy generates the wealth that allows a country to improve its performance across all the policy areas that we identify in the Government's five strategic objectives.
I want to talk about one other way in which our approach will be new. The Scottish Government regards its relations with Westminster as extremely important. Our aim, at all times, is for constructive and effective dialogue. We have a range of policy priorities that we recognise might have a direct impact on the actions of the United Kingdom Government, but we are not about picking a daily fight with London, as the media sometimes claims. It is vital, though, that our voice is heard. Sometimes that will mean standing up strongly for Scotland's interests and challenging London fairly hard on some issues. We make no apology for that. One of the key strands of the progress that we make will be to re-establish formal mechanisms for inter-Government engagement. We continue to press the UK Government to reinstate the joint ministerial committee.
We are in the early stages of developing our UK relations strategy, which will help me to keep an overarching view as portfolio ministers take forward business across the range of priorities that impact on other Governments.
Our manifesto made a specific commitment to strengthening the concordats to ensure the best outcomes for Scotland and I am considering the best way in which to achieve that. We have continued to work within the existing framework of the memorandum of understanding on concordats. However, over time we will want to examine the concordats to ensure that they are right for Scotland. We are putting serious effort into building relations with Wales and Northern Ireland.
I have outlined our approach to international work, which is different from that of the previous Government. We have taken the time to reflect on what we need from international work, but we have also acted; I will give the committee an overview of our recent activity.
The committee knows that we lost no time in setting out how the Government will approach EU issues. We have already had the opportunity to discuss our key political objectives, as well as the top EU priorities that we have identified. We have also taken forward work to refresh the China strategy, because everyone recognises the importance of relationships with China. Last month, Jim Mather and I took part in a consultation group in which senior figures who are active in business, education, culture and science all helped us to think about how we approach relations with the Chinese and what we could do better.
Perhaps the key message that I took from that meeting was the need for Government to work closely with stakeholders to identify the key points of leverage. The big challenge is to identify how the work of government can help to move business along or to open doors to high-level scientific, educational or cultural exchange. That is crucial. Listening to people at the meeting, I did not hear anyone clamouring for new documents and glossy booklets; it is the strategic behaviour that is important. The challenge to us all is to find fora in which we can identify where our real strengths lie across government, business and civic society and to work together to find ways in which we can carve out space in an ever-more competitive global market. I hope that the opening of the Confucius Institute for Scotland will provide us with that focus. Last week, that relationship brought the director of Hanban to the Scotland-China education network conference, at which the First Minister spoke. That led to the development of new work to bring Chinese support for language learning into Scottish classrooms. Of course, our first secretary for Scottish affairs in Beijing continues to work hard, alongside Scottish Development International, to maximise opportunities out there.
I turn to North America. Earlier this month, the First Minister visited New York and the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism visited Canada. They both met a range of exciting potential investors, and indeed existing investors. The First Minister's visit also included a number of appearances on influential New York-based business media. As the committee knows, the First Minister intended to make a statement to the Parliament last week about his visit to the United States. Because the Government attaches importance to its international engagement, the First Minister's office has arranged to make that intended statement available in the Scottish Parliament information centre today.
The visits were primarily about promoting Scotland's economic growth, but they were also opportunities to explain the changes that have taken place since May. The First Minister's statement makes it clear that the Government attaches importance to its relations with the United States. The US continues to be our biggest export and tourism market and there is potential for increased growth in the coming years. To achieve that growth, we need to ensure that we maximise our efforts in North America. That is why I announce today that the successor to Michael Kellett, who is currently our first secretary in Washington DC, will be Robin Naysmith. He will take up the post of Scottish Government counsellor for North America. His role will be to build on the work of previous first secretaries by co-ordinating the business of Scottish Government agencies in the US and Canada and promoting a team Scotland approach so that, when customers engage with us, they see Scotland and not a collection of different agencies. That will also allow us to make better use in the US of the resources that the Government has at its disposal.
I talked earlier about the need to attract people to the country so that we have the population that we need to grow the economy and create a wealthier, fairer Scotland. We will develop the existing fresh talent policy to do just that.
In my final couple of minutes, I turn to international development and, within that, Malawi, which is of great interest to the committee. The Scottish Government is committed to international development and Scotland's role as a responsible nation, building on our long history of engagement with the developing world. We continue to honour the commitments in the co-operation agreement with Malawi. The special relationship with Malawi is embraced throughout Scotland. However, we do not want to duplicate the work of others. Rather, we want to complement it. Our contribution is to build capacity within Malawi and to respond to the needs that the Malawian people identify.
The international development policy has been in place for more than two years and much has happened since its introduction. That is why, in August, I announced a review of the policy and published on the Scottish Government's website a short paper that invites people's views on how best to take forward our involvement. As the committee knows, I announced our commitment to increase the international development fund to £9 million in the lifetime of this Parliament, within the context of the policy review and the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review. That includes a specific budget for Malawi.
The review is aimed not at the detail of our policy on Malawi, but rather at the wider principles of the international development policy. There will, of course, be implications for funding mechanisms in relation to Malawi. Meanwhile, I and my officials will continue to work closely with our colleagues in Malawi to develop greater focus and identify future priorities as existing projects come to an end.
The previous Administration decided not to run a full funding round in the current financial year. I understand that that was due to the election. On taking up office, I decided to have a review of wider policy to inform the spending of the increased budget. That leaves us some flexibility in this year's budget and we have considered how best to identify priorities that are in line with existing policy commitments. We decided to focus the funding primarily on existing policy commitments in Malawi, and those initiatives will be announced in due course. In addition, I announced that further funding has been allocated to the Scottish fair trade forum at its launch on Saturday past.
I read with interest the Official Report of the session that the committee held with non-governmental organisations regarding international development. I am concerned by some of the assertions that were made, particularly the suggestion that I was pressured into making a statement on the ring-fenced budget of a minimum of £3 million per annum for Malawi. That is not the case. I will be happy to elaborate on my concern if the committee wishes to return to the matter during the question session.
Finally, I turn to what the Scottish Government will do next. I said that I am keen to keep working—both in the Government and throughout wider Scottish society—to develop our sense of what we could and should do to build our international activities. I want to keep working to identify areas in which there is scope for collaboration. A central part of that will be work with our partners to develop and communicate the Scottish identity overseas. I will publish a document early next year that sets out our thinking on how we will position Scotland internationally. The document will cover how we can communicate an understanding of contemporary Scotland to attract the inward investors, businesspeople, skilled workers and tourists who will be crucial to our future economic success. Discussions are continuing and progress cannot be immediate, but it will allow us to publish and then deliver an ambitious international strategy for Scotland that is informed by more detailed policy plans for our key areas of work.
Thank you. You certainly covered a lot of ground, and I am sure that members have lots of questions to ask you.
I will set the ball rolling. I think that your first statement was that you are taking time to review the international strategy. How do you intend to carry out that review? Will you consult external stakeholders?
The work is continuing. I said that we are refreshing the China strategy. That is an example of the way in which I want to work with all the stakeholders who are involved. I want to pick up on the knowledge that they have from the work that they do, so that, when we publish our strategy, we know that we have listened to the people who matter and the people who know.
You made two strong points about what you wish to happen with regard to independence and relations with London, but those two issues are not part of the international strategy as it was originally constructed. In what significant ways do you differ from the strategy, which was published in 2004?
There are quite a lot of documents, including different co-operation agreements and strategies. As I said in my introduction, good work has been done on which we can build, but we think that we can focus more and do things better. We are examining what is already there and building upon it.
Again, I use the China strategy as an example. That is the second most recent of the relevant documents that were published by the previous Administration. It is a good document. When we had a meeting of all the players who are involved, nobody wanted to throw it out and start again. That would be wasteful. However, we need to examine the strategy and ask what is really good, what is not working quite so well, and how we should move forward. The people from the various sectors know what they are doing. They have been doing this stuff for a long time. The Government has to be strategic and recognise where it should step in for maximum benefit. That involves our taking advice from those who have been working internationally for a long time.
I thank Linda Fabiani for her comprehensive statement. I have questions on a couple of matters, the first of which is the joint ministerial committees that involve London and the devolved Administrations in the UK. We know that your Government, the Northern Ireland Government and the Welsh Government are all keen to make the committees work. In effect, the committees became defunct during the first eight years of devolution. Is Gordon Brown deliberately trying to sabotage the relationship between London and the devolved Administrations? I take it that London has been the problem in the attempts to get the joint ministerial committees up and running.
I am not trying to lead the minister in any way. [Laughter.]
I would never suspect you of trying to lead a minister, Alex.
The answer to that question has to come from the Prime Minister and his office. The First Minister has written to say that we would like a plenary session of the joint ministerial committees. Only the joint ministerial committee on Europe has met in the past few years; the other committees have not met and there has not been a plenary session.
We have written to ask for a plenary session of the joint ministerial committees. I am pretty certain that I raised the issue at the first JMCE that I went to, but we have not yet had an answer. The committee knows that we have been building relationships with members from the north of Ireland and the Welsh Assembly, and we held successful meetings prior to each of the JMCEs that I attended. I believe that the devolved Administrations take the view that we need to talk about the issues and about re-establishing the joint ministerial committees.
The concordats that stem from the Scotland Act 1998 are constantly under review, and we have said that we will strengthen them where necessary. The time is probably right for that, but the structure needs to be in place. We are asking the UK Government to implement the existing structure, which has not been used in practice; that would be the sensible way to move forward.
The UK Government has not responded to the devolved Administrations' request to re-establish the joint ministerial committees, despite the fact that there has been a public commitment in principle to do that. Has it given any indication of a timeframe within which it will respond, or its reasons for not responding?
As far as I am aware, there has been no response. Daniel Kleinberg, who has checked the position more recently than I have, agrees with that.
The other area—
We should stick with the subject of relations with the UK Government, if anyone else wants to ask a question on that.
I have a couple of supplementary questions. When was the request made?
It was ages ago. If I remember rightly, the request was made before I attended my first joint ministerial committee on Europe, so we are talking about the end of May or the beginning of June. I will check the exact date of the First Minister's letter and get back to you.
Have you considered engaging your colleagues in the Scotland Office to see whether they can be of assistance?
First, I want to correct what I have just said. The request was made between the first and second JMCE that I attended; the First Minister wrote on 3 August. I must have raised the issue at the first joint ministerial committee on Europe and then the First Minister wrote.
Okay. Have you thought of engaging your Scotland Office colleagues to assist us in reinstating the joint committees? Have they given any view of the situation?
No. The First Minister wrote directly to the Prime Minister. I am sure that our Scotland Office colleagues would be sympathetic to our view that the forum should be reinstated. Perhaps I will take it upon myself to check it out with them.
Thank you for your very interesting presentation.
You spoke about your engagement with stakeholders on China, Germany and North America. Are you doing something similar to develop your strategy for dealing with the UK Government? Are you speaking to individual stakeholders? If that is the approach that you are taking at departmental level on these issues, are you also doing something similar externally to develop your approach to the UK Government?
Ministers at all levels have been dealing with their counterparts in the UK Government as a first step. We have implemented the national conversation; I cannot think of any better forum than that for people to give us views on Scotland's relationship with the UK Government. It is a very obvious place for stakeholders to put forward their views.
You are developing a policy that already exists for dealing with China, and you have asked stakeholders to engage in that policy development. You are also developing a policy to engage with the UK Government, so do you intend to bring in stakeholders on that? The national conversation is much wider—it does not have a start, a middle or an end as far as I am aware. We are talking about your department going through a policy development process; are you going to engage stakeholders in that?
Every single person in Scotland is a stakeholder in our relationship with the UK Government, so the national conversation is absolutely what should be happening.
You have spoken to the committee previously about the joint ministerial committee on Europe, so I assume that you do not think that there is a problem with it. When you are talking about joint ministerial committees, are you talking about those for other portfolios?
Do you mean the general JMC meetings that were set up right at the start?
Yes. Are those the ones that you think are creating difficulty? You have said that the joint ministerial committee on Europe still meets regularly. Is that right?
I will ask for advice about this. As well as the plenary joint ministerial committee, there are committees on Europe, poverty and the economy and one other. Daniel Kleinberg will help me with this; I cannot remember what they all are.
Daniel Kleinberg (Scottish Government Europe, External Affairs and Culture Directorate):
The First Minister asked for a plenary session of the joint ministerial committee. There is also a JMC sub-committee on European issues, but the Scottish Government asked for a general meeting of the wider JMC to discuss Scotland's relationship with the UK.
Agreement should be reached at the plenary meeting on how to move forward with the other committees. I do not know why the joint ministerial committee on Europe kept on meeting when the others did not meet at all. I do not understand why that happened, although I am glad that it did.
I am not convinced that the JMCE is working at the moment. I have been at only two of the meetings and I have to go to another one in December. I am not convinced that it is working as it should be in relation to how the UK Government deals with the devolved Administrations. That is one reason why I am meeting our partners in the north of Ireland and Wales to ensure that the devolved Administrations are getting what they should be getting out of the joint ministerial committee on Europe.
The meetings have been mainly at official level and only two have involved politicians. If we are talking about building a policy, it is necessary for the politicians to face each other. That is just a point of information.
I do not quite know how to put my question because I do not want to kick up a stink to start off with. [Laughter.] It is not just the Scots who are girning, is it? What record do we have of the Northern Irish or Welsh Administrations making the same complaints? Is there such a record of complaints from them, or are we fighting the good fight alone?
As I said, I met the representatives from the north of Ireland and Wales before going into the JMCE meetings that I attended. Ian Paisley Jnr and Gerry Kelly, who are the ministers from the north of Ireland with joint responsibility for Europe, came to have a chat with me.
In Wales, Rhodri Morgan, the First Minister, has sole responsibility for Europe. He was not well for a while, so he has not come to any of the meetings, but he has sent representatives, and it has been really interesting.
Ian Paisley Jnr also raised the issue of the joint ministerial committee when we discussed all this. At the end of the day, it is up to each Government to send its own missives to the Prime Minister.
I have a wee supplementary on that. I suggest that it would carry more weight and we would not seem like girning Scots if all the devolved Administrations decided what kind of structure they would prefer to see and made a joint proposal.
There is a need for common interest in this. As we speak, arrangements are being made for representatives from the north of Ireland to come here to discuss such issues prior to the next joint ministerial committee on Europe, which will take place on 5 December. An invitation has also gone out to Wales and I hope that a minister will come from there as well. These questions will certainly be on the agenda.
Gil Paterson has a question on that subject.
Margo MacDonald covered the point that I was going to make, but I also want to ask about China.
I will bring in Alex Neil first, because he wants to make another point about Malawi.
I am delighted that the balance of funding that is available for the rest of the year will be dedicated to Malawi. I think that most members who have been to Malawi agree that that is a sensible decision. Minister, you expressed concern about comments that were made during the committee's round-table evidence session with stakeholders. Will you expand on that? It would be worth bringing your concerns into the open, so that members can be clear about your response to those comments.
During that discussion, it was suggested that I had felt pressured into making my statement on the budget for Malawi. That was not the case. I do not know on what basis the assertion was made, because I have confirmed our commitment to Malawi from the outset. Although I had committed ring-fenced funding for Malawi, the Scotland Malawi Partnership issued a press statement that implied that the commitment to Malawi was in question—it did so just prior to a meeting that I had with the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland. Indeed, I had also stated my commitment to Malawi during my previous appearance before the European and External Relations Committee, so I do not know why your witnesses thought it necessary to make those remarks. Perhaps they were expressing their understanding of what had happened.
When I took on my ministerial post, I thought that it was crucial that the Government in Malawi should not be concerned that the formation of a new Government in Scotland would make a big difference to the relationship between Scotland and Malawi. That is why I quickly announced that at least £3 million per year would be ring fenced for the Malawi fund. I am sure about the timing, because I deliberately made the announcement before a high-level meeting of officers in Malawi took place. Lisa Bird and Andrew Goudie, who is director-general of economy, went to Malawi to confirm to our partners there that they should not worry that there might be a big cut in funding. I make it clear that I was not pressurised into anything.
NIDOS members also expressed concern about the types of projects that had been funded. Officials followed up those comments after the meeting by asking NIDOS to provide examples of failures in the process. However, no examples have been forthcoming, which is worth noting. I have spoken to officials and I am assured that assessment and monitoring are taken seriously. I will continue to ensure that that remains the case.
Concern was also expressed about a perceived lack of transparency in the funding process. I want to ensure that such a perception—that is all it is—does not continue.
The context for the remarks that were made during our round-table discussion was stakeholders' concern that you are reviewing only the non-Malawi aspects of international development policy. People were asking whether you would review the totality of the policy, including Malawi, sooner or later. Will you comment on that?
We do not just have a special relationship with Malawi; we have signed agreements on how both Governments proceed. It is not for one partner in the relationship suddenly to decide to review those agreements; a review must be undertaken jointly between the Government of Scotland and the Government of Malawi. That is the only fair way to proceed—I am talking about a small consultation in the context of the wider review of policy that I mentioned. Issues that emerge from the review to do with what we fund and operating practices might have an impact on how we deal with Malawi.
We should bear in mind that there are existing commitments, which were made by the previous Administration. We are certainly not going to pull the rug out from under the feet of projects; commitments must be honoured and I have assured the Malawian Government that they will be. I hope to go to Malawi fairly soon to meet my counterparts. At that time, we will take the Malawian Government's views on the current agreement, on how it might be more focused, and on what has and has not worked.
I will say this over and over again: nothing that we do in our review of international development policy and what we do jointly with the Malawian Government is about saying that what went before was wrong. The time is right to review a policy that was brand new for a Scottish Government and a Scottish Parliament to carry forward jointly. I am happy that we are doing that in a spirit of trying to find how best to achieve what we want to achieve.
I do not know whether the minister is aware of this, but the committee has been told that an organisation whose application had failed challenged the decision through a media campaign. As a result, the application was successful. The incident set alarm bells ringing among organisations that are involved in international development, which asked, "If there are clear criteria and a transparent process, how can a media campaign reverse a decision?"
It is not for me to comment on something that the previous Administration did—
A working group, not the Administration, decides on grants. I presume that it does so on the basis of clear criteria.
Yes, but the Government provides funding, runs the scheme and has responsibility. I cannot comment on action taken by the previous Administration in that respect. However, I will ensure that there is absolute transparency and accountability from now on.
The policy was new for everyone, and people learned along the way. Two years down the line, with a new Government in place, it is time to review the policy and learn from what has gone before. If what you described happened, I hope that such situations will not recur.
I apologise to members and the minister for being a bit late. I missed your comments on China, minister. I have just returned from a personal visit there. My company has been doing business in China for 10 years. The Chinese market is very large, but it is difficult for a wee Scottish company to make inroads into the country—even getting a visa is hard, for example. Our market is currently being flooded with Chinese goods, and people always complain that goods are being dumped, but if we look a bit further, we find that the goods are far dearer in this country than they are in China—that cannot be dumping.
John Park talked about engaging with stakeholders. I encourage the Government to make it part of its strategy to help to open the door for businesses in Scotland. The commercial sector in Scotland is not looking for money handouts; it wants you to facilitate access to the big Chinese market for the goods that it produces. Although almost the whole world is feeling the power of China, the Chinese market is almost untouched by our expertise and services, particularly in electronics. I am sorry if you covered this point in your opening remarks, minister, but I encourage you to engage with stakeholders and companies in Scotland, to help them to get into the Chinese market. Such assistance would cost the Government very little.
You are right. Your comments tie in with something that I said—although I did not go into detail—about discussions with stakeholders about how best to move things forward. There are many people with a great deal of experience who have been working in China for a long time and we should draw on their experience. Government must be strategic and ask where it can add value and what would be best for it to do to facilitate initiatives of the kind that you mentioned.
Our meeting with stakeholders on the China strategy was attended by Lucy Watkins, who is the first secretary for Scottish affairs and who runs the Government's office in Beijing. Such contact is a starting point for small businesses that can lead into the assistance that the Scottish Development International network can provide. Part of the issue might be a lack of recognition—people who run smaller businesses might not know where to go for such assistance because the information is not up front enough. We will take that point on board and feed it into the discussions—thank you for raising it.
Do any other members want to ask about China? We will hear from Ted Brocklebank and Margo MacDonald, before Iain Smith moves us on to a different subject.
There are other areas that I want to ask about, but I will ask about China first. Like Gil Paterson, I have been to China and seen the developments there. I have also been to the island of Taiwan, which the United Kingdom does not formally recognise. Given that the Norwegians, whom the minister and the Scottish National Party hold in huge admiration, are moving their consulate out of Edinburgh, does the minister acknowledge that Taiwan has had an economic mission in Edinburgh for many years and that doing business in Taiwan, as a number of Scottish firms are doing, is a useful stepping stone to doing business down in Asia? Would the minister like to put on record that, despite the fact that the UK Government does not formally recognise Taiwan, we in Scotland recognise that its economic mission here in Edinburgh brings great advantages?
Taiwan is not recognised by the UK Government as an independent state. There is definitely an issue there, but it must be worked out through diplomatic relations. It would not be right for me to put on record any statement by the Government without properly thinking through such matters.
I wanted to mention Taiwan as well because, given that there has been a change at the top in China, it is possible that there might be a change in policy or attitude towards Taiwan—we do not know. It is an issue on which the minister is wise not to get in over her head; perhaps it could be discussed at a concordat meeting.
You talked about having a strategy for China, which you have said is a big place—that is too true. Will the strategy take account of the different regional possibilities in China? In other words, will it be based on geography or on sections of the economy that we might tackle, such as exports? It is too broad to say that we will help our small businesses in China. How and where will we help them?
You make a valid point, which was discussed at the meeting of the China strategy group that I mentioned. The previous Administration entered into a geographical agreement with Shandong province. The China strategy group discussed whether linking up with only one region was a good thing or whether it could stymie other advances into China. We considered whether thematic relationships should be entered into. One reason why Shandong was chosen was that it could have a relationship with the north-east of Scotland on energy, but it may well be the case that relationships in science or business could be developed with other parts of China. The question whether we should tie ourselves into particular geographical agreements or whether we should adopt a thematic approach is under discussion.
I suggest holding a seminar or conference, so that everybody who knows something about the issue can pitch in.
The meeting that we had was that kind of event. I am considering how to progress. I will take on board your comment.
My question ties in with the discussion that we have just had about whether to take a geographic or thematic approach. You said that you intended to publish a paper in the new year on developing Scottish identity overseas. Do you envisage that work following on from the existing approach of concentrating on certain locations such as North America, China, Germany and our partner regions such as Catalonia and Tuscany, or do you envisage adopting a more thematic approach? What do you think is the fundamental purpose of the international strategy for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament? Do you envisage having a debate in the Parliament on the Government's paper when it is published?
Given the extent of the work that has been done, I will be making my bid for a debate, just as everybody else does.
There are two strands to our international policy. One strand is to do what is best for Scotland, which is about creating links with places to benefit Scotland. There are obvious places with which to make such links, such as North America and China, to bring benefits in future. The other strand is about Scotland doing what is right and taking its place in the world. That is where international development comes in. The policy is very much two stranded.
It is not just about business but about culture—one can be informed by the other. I want to be sure that we take a team Scotland approach, because it would be better for us all if Scotland had an identity in those terms, rather than having lots of different agencies doing lots of different things without coming together—regardless of whether that is the reality or the perception. That is why strengthening our presence as a Government in North America, through the appointment that I mentioned earlier, will be of great benefit.
You mentioned Scotland doing the right thing. In that context, to what extent will the Scottish Government take account of human rights abuses in countries with which we are building relationships? How will you work with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that the international strategy of the Scottish Government does not interfere with diplomatic efforts that are being made at United Kingdom or Europe level?
In everything that we do, there are constant discussions at official level with the appropriate agencies in Westminster. That carries on. As far as human rights are concerned, both the First Minister and I have raised human rights issues at meetings that we have had with diplomats.
You talked about the obvious places where we should be considering development, such as North America and China. As you know, after China, the second most rapidly developing country in the world is India, which has many historic links with Scotland. At the committee's away day, I raised the prospect of our doing something more serious about establishing an extra presence in India.
With regard to relations with North America, I welcome Robin Naysmith's appointment and the fact that we will have a single Scottish voice to perhaps bring together all the agencies there. I do not know whether the statement that will be lodged with SPICe later today addresses tartan day. Earlier this year, I asked the minister about the tartan day celebrations and she undertook to come back to me to share her thoughts on whether they were the most effective way of Scotland representing itself in the United States.
I absolutely recognise the importance of India. Everyone here will know that this year was the 60th anniversary of Indian independence. We recognise the footprint that Scotland has in India and the joint relations that that brings. Because of that, we have on-going constructive dialogue at consular level about India.
I said that I would get back to the member and I hope to do so soon. We have almost pulled together what we want to do and achieve during the Scotland week and tartan day celebrations in North America. I am confident that the new appointment in North America, which is at a higher grade than the previous one—it is now a senior civil service post—will enable us to take a much more strategic approach to such matters in the future. As I think I have said to the member previously, the celebrations for Scotland week and tartan day in 2008 will be a springboard for further advancement, as was the First Minister's visit to New York earlier this month.
When the First Minister did not make his statement last week, I lodged a question asking for a copy of it; that is why a copy was lodged in SPICe. I am sorry, but there is nothing in it about tartan week, which is a great pity. I do not want to take up the committee's time, so I simply suggest that, rather than waste a lot of time and money on tartan week—as we have done so far—we should spend money buying space on American television and get a good television documentary maker to make a series of short advertisements for Scotland.
Featuring Ted Brocklebank.
I could make them.
We will have the good looking ones.
Minister, do you want to comment?
Are any of the meeting rooms in Victoria Quay bugged?
I want to ask the minister about the previous international development strategy, which referred to the development of overseas co-operation partnerships with various regions, such as Catalonia, Bavaria, Tuscany and North Rhine-Westphalia, and to working within Commonwealth networks. The minister will recall from our days on the European and External Relations Committee in the previous session of Parliament that we had an interest in how those bilateral partnerships were working. Has she had a chance to review that matter yet and, if not, is such a review in the timetable for the future?
The co-operation model is part of the review. I have considered the matter and I am not convinced that the model is always the best way in which to work with our partners. Obviously, we remain open to doing work that is of mutual benefit, perhaps on a thematic basis, as Ms MacDonald suggested, which may be the best approach. I have undertaken engagements—for example, I have had meetings with Bavarians, met a representative of the Catalonian Government and had a visit from a minister from Victoria.
But those things would have happened anyway, regardless of the co-operation partnerships.
Yes, but what I was going to say was that I have been up front with the representatives and told them that we are reviewing our strategy. I have also been open about that with the consular corps in Scotland, which is based mainly in Edinburgh—the diplomatic representation is generally based here. I have been open and the approach has been accepted. I think that all those people have acknowledged that, in some cases, an agreement can be signed, but then nothing formal actually happens, and that it might be better simply to come together on specific issues that are of mutual interest. The matter is under review and the outcome will be part of the strategy.
So, apart from the visits, has anything actually been happening?
No, but I suspect that that is no change from when the agreements were signed. No one has said to me that, as a result of an agreement, certain things have happened. That is one reason why the policy is under review and why I am not convinced that it is the best model.
I have sympathy with your points. What criteria will you seek to apply in reviewing the relationships?
Daniel Kleinberg will comment, as he was involved in setting up some of the agreements for the previous Administration.
I am not convinced that it is good to set criteria for entering into agreements in the first place. We will question why the agreements were set up, whether they amount to more than our being naturally quite friendly and whether there was a real reason behind setting them up—whether any strategy was being taken forward. We will consider what has happened since the agreements were set up, what the other partners feel they have got from them and what they feel could happen in the future. If an agreement is signed, it is not enough for one partner to say that they will not be party to it any more; there must be joint discussion.
I ask Daniel Kleinberg to talk about the agreements that were put in place.
It is worth adding to what the minister has said that there are on-going exchanges, which are led by areas of success in which co-operation has delivered mutual benefits. For example, planning exchanges with Bavaria have worked well and will continue to take place. The difference is whether a co-operation model is deemed the best reason for that work to go ahead. The advice at the moment is to start with one's policy, not necessarily with one's region.
Helpful exchanges have taken place on the environmental side with Germany. There is on-going work under the co-operation agreement, but it is probably no longer captured as co-operation agreement work in the first instance. The Chiemsee tourist exchange with Bavaria, which the minister attended, probably happened only as a result of the specific relationship with Bavaria but it had a value in itself.
Does the minister have a timescale for the review of the agreements?
It is all informing our international strategy, which I plan to agree with the First Minister and the Cabinet in the early part of next year before making it public.
Daniel Kleinberg said that there has been some co-operation with Germany over environmental concerns. Are you talking about a department of the federal Government? I just want to get an idea of whom we are talking to and what we are talking about.
I will have to take advice from environment colleagues on who exactly was at the conference. There is regional co-operation, and some of those regional conferences may well have federal input. I am happy to write to the committee with that information.
I want to move the discussion sideways, to the fresh talent initiative, to which the minister referred in her opening remarks. Will that policy move forward consistently as it is just now, or will you review it? If so, do you have a timescale for that review? Do you have any thoughts about how the policy might develop? I am interested in your thinking on it.
We are constantly monitoring and reviewing the fresh talent initiative although, obviously, much of what happens with it is determined by the Home Office. For example, I am in discussions with Liam Byrne, of the Home Office, about the fresh talent working in Scotland scheme. The Home Office plans to rationalise the criteria across the UK, which would take away Scotland's advantage in being able to keep fresh talent here after people have finished their studies. Also, the points system that the UK Government is talking about introducing for immigration could impact on the fresh talent initiative.
The policy is constantly under review and, at official level, there is almost full-time discussion back and forward; I participate in that when necessary, when there are big concerns. There is a big concern at the moment about what will happen with the UK rationalisation, and some of the colleges have written to Liam Byrne to express their concern. I had a fruitful telephone conference with him and I believe that he took on board some of the points that I made. We followed that up in writing and he seemed willing to look again at what is specific to Scotland. I hope that he will do that.
Do you foresee that picture changing at all? Figures that were released last week by the Office for National Statistics showed that the UK population will increase by 10 million over the next 20 or 30 years. What is your view of the picture in Scotland and whether it will change? I understand that the figures may be out at the beginning of next year. Will that influence how you develop your policies?
The population projections that have been published to date are encouraging. We said that when we commented on them, although we should not be complacent about them.
We know—Scotland's history shows—that migration is an important factor in growing our population. There will continue to be a policy of welcoming people who help us to create the Scotland that we want to create. Fresh talent is very much part of that. We also need to retain Scots by making them want to live and work in their own country and we must attract back Scots who have left the country—the Scottish diaspora. Scotland needs to have a vibrant population. We will continue to work towards that and to look at all the strands that are important in achieving that; I believe that that is on-going across all divisions of Government. We need to ensure that we get that right.
Given that it is past 11 o'clock, I should draw the session to a conclusion. Does any member have a last question to put?
The minister spoke about the relations that she is developing with the National Assembly for Wales and colleagues in Northern Ireland. Is she aware that Scotland is the only country that has not as yet decided on its Committee of the Regions delegation? Can she update the committee on the progress that has been made in that regard?
Yes. That said, the matter is very much within the remit of the Minister for Parliamentary Business and the appropriate business managers. I understand that the discussion is still on-going.
The minister mentioned the United Kingdom Government's attitude towards the introduction of a points system for people who wish to come to the UK. Does the Scottish Government have an opinion on that? Will there be an opportunity for the committee to debate the matter? Such a system would fundamentally change immigration into the UK and have all sorts of consequences for Scotland. Do we get to talk about it?
Obviously, the matter is of great concern to Margo MacDonald. I will take the issue on board and pass on the question to the appropriate people.
When will the international strategy be complete? Are you willing to bring it to the committee?
We are talking about early next year and I am more than happy to do that.
I have enjoyed today's session. For the benefit of the country, it is very important that these things are discussed by people other than those at Government level. The committee has made a good innovation in giving equal weighting to international and external affairs and to Europe. I am more than willing to come back before the committee at the appropriate time,
I thank you and your officials for giving us your time, minister.
I suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow people to leave.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—