Chamber and committees

I am delighted to speak again to the committee, this time about national outcomes and our international work. This is our first opportunity to talk about that since publication in December 2023 of the first annual report, “Scotland’s International Network: Annual Report 2022-23”. That publication followed a recommendation by this committee that I was glad to accept. I would be pleased to hear feedback about how that report has met your aspirations and about what members would like to see more of in the future.

Officials in the network offices and at home in Scotland are now undertaking monitoring and evaluation to inform our next annual report, which we will publish later this year. I want to continue refining and improving reports, which are an important part of how we ensure accountability and transparency in how Scotland’s international network delivers.

I believe that the network makes a significant contribution on behalf of Scottish businesses and organisations and in support of Scottish interests. The most recent EY investment attractiveness survey showed that for the eighth consecutive year Scotland has, outside London, been the most attractive destination for foreign investment in the UK. That is in large part due to the excellent efforts of officials in Scottish Development International, the Scottish Government and partner bodies at home and overseas, to promote Scotland to the world.

The Scottish Government has now laid its report on the review of the national outcomes before Parliament and I am pleased that the international outcome remains in the proposed set of outcomes, albeit with a slight shift in focus. The slight changes that are proposed relate to the twin crises of the climate and biodiversity emergencies. The word “globally” replaces the word “internationally”, reflecting the fact that it is an outcome not only between nations but in relation to the land, sea and air that we all share. The words “show leadership” have been added, in recognition that Scotland has much to offer partners across the world in the transition to a growing greener and fairer economy.

Members of the committee are likely to recognise that no data has been published for the “international networks” indicator in the set informing the current international outcome. The committee has heard from a variety of expert witnesses that it is very difficult to carry out quantitative analysis of diplomatic activity such as networking, building relationships, exercising influence and deploying soft power, and that countries the world over, including those with far larger international footprints than Scotland, struggle to do so. Professor Juliet Kaarbo of the University of Edinburgh and Professor Stephen Gethins of the University of St Andrews, among others, gave evidence to that effect.

We will do our best to capture that analysis but, in our experience, drawing together data to meet the analytical rigour that is needed for the national performance framework has been challenging. Knowing that to be the case, there is an opportunity for us to do more to present and highlight qualitative data in a different format to demonstrate the impact of our international work.

Earlier this week, we published a significant report that looks at our contribution to international development from 2021 to 2023. The annual report on the international network is another excellent example and I look forward to presenting the next iteration later this year. It will lay the groundwork for future annual reporting on Scotland’s international strategy and will take a similar approach to the wide sweep of our international activity. In that way, we can balance strong performance on hard measures, particularly those on the economy, with a narrative about how the work of diplomats and trade and investment experts helps us to meet our objectives and to deliver impact at home.

I know that committee members visited Ireland to learn how it approaches similar questions and am pleased that Scottish Government civil servants based in the British embassy in Dublin were able to host and facilitate your engagement with the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs.

The committee also heard from the heads of three of our international offices last year. I hope that there will be more such opportunities to share how our international activity contributes to achieving outcomes for Scotland.

That is a very well-timed question because, as Mr Ruskell knows, I have taken on the day-to-day responsibility for international development which, until recently, was held by other colleagues. Therefore, his intervention is well timed to make sure that, as I begin acting on those responsibilities in a day-to-day way, I think about how we help to mainstream—to use the jargon—an understanding of what it is that we do and how we are doing it and ensure that this is not something that just sits in a box called “international development” or in the department of external affairs of the Scottish Government but something that impacts on the broader work of the Scottish Government.

I must say that we have had significant buy-in from other ministers in other parts of the Government on the wellbeing agenda, which Mr Ruskell highlighted, but how do we link that to what we are doing furth of Scotland? One of those areas where we are trying to be joined up relates to our immediate northern neighbourhood. We have been talking a bit about international development and a relationship with the global south. We also have a view towards the global north in our immediate neighbourhood, and there is a very strong environmental dimension to that. Scotland is the most northerly non-Arctic country in the world, and we are doing a lot to work with our northern neighbours to deal with the shared challenges that we have in terms of the environment but also in areas where the Scottish Government has devolved responsibility—and wellbeing is one of those areas.

Through our approach to Arctic and northern co-operation, we are bringing together Scottish universities, for example, to work with other northern seats of learning, to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to co-operate with one another in the field of remote health, wellbeing and education. That involves much more than just the department of external affairs in the Scottish Government. That is an example of where it is not just my responsibility; we will have ministers who have responsibilities in and for areas such as the environment, energy and health who are part of that wider Scottish Government approach to things.

The short answer to Mr Ruskell is that I will reflect on his international development point and on how we ensure that there is wider understanding across Scottish Government. In the area in which I have had day-to-day responsibility for a longer period, we have already been doing that in relation to our northern neighbourhood, but I want to make sure that we do that for both areas of responsibility.

I am always open to suggestions as to how we ensure the best understanding of decision making and priorities. I am pleased that people want us to do more—that is a good thing. It reflects the fact that people feel that, even though our budget is relatively small compared to that of other international development partners, Scotland’s input is still welcome.

I know that because, for example, the Zambian President is in Scotland at present—I am sorry, but I think that I said Zaire a moment ago; I meant to say Zambia—and we have projects in that country. We know from him, his Government and civil society partners in that country, as we do from our other partner countries, that Scotland’s contribution is valued.

However, along the way, having that good relationship with our partners and explaining how we make the decisions that we do is an integral part of maintaining that high level of trust and welcome for engagement, and that is something that we are keen to maintain with our charity and third sector partners as well as our partner countries. The fact that we have Government relations and Government visitors here from those countries as well as an on-going relationship with the third sector in those countries is proof that things are working.

The first thing to state is the obvious, which you have already heard from those who have given evidence to you: the TCA is a significant step backwards in our economic and trading relationship with the EU compared with the benefits that the UK enjoyed as a member state.

The evidence that you have heard in the inquiry has illustrated that already. Brexit has generated bureaucracy, costs and delays and created complexity for Scottish businesses. There are barriers to trade, which have exacerbated recruitment challenges and held back investment on a significant scale. The UK economy is now 2.5 per cent smaller than it would have been in the EU, and the gap could increase to 5.7 per cent by 2035.

Things can be done, which Scottish Enterprise—the national economic agency of the Scottish Government—deals with, as do Scottish Development International and our colleagues in the Scottish Government office in Brussels. There is a constant effort to work out how we can ameliorate the challenges. However, there is only so much that can be done.

Our relations with the EU are a matter for the UK Government, which sought a hard Brexit. We now have a hard Brexit and hard consequences. We will do what we can around the edges—we will perhaps come to that when we discuss the TCA, with very specific examples of where slight improvements might be sought.

On the big picture, though, unless the UK seeks to rejoin the European single market or join the European Union as a whole, we will continue with all these disadvantages. We will work together with business and with exporters and importers as much as we can, but there is no getting round the hard facts: Brexit is Brexit; it is bad; and it will continue to be bad.

Okay—fine.

I do understand the point that you are making.

There are a few points to make about the specialised committees. First, they are all relatively new, but some were set up later than others. I am not in a position to talk about issues with the frequency of the meetings—my officials might want to say whether they have a particular view on whether that has been problematic. To be honest, I think that the challenge was to get the specialised committees established in the first place. Now that they have been established, they have to find a rhythm to what they do. I am not in favour of having meetings for the sake of having meetings. I generally believe that issues that need to be discussed should be raised when they need to be.

There might be an issue around how often the specialised committees meet and whether they meet often enough—I think that that is the nub of your question. I am not sure that we are going to be able to answer that yet—I see that Nick Leake would like to comment, and I will let him in in a second. I had a concern around the fact that, for quite some time, a significant number of the specialised committees had not met at all. It seemed to me that, if it was thought that it was important to establish those specialised committees, it was pretty important that they should at least have an initial meeting and then discuss what the rhythm of their meetings should be in future.

Now that the committees have largely been established, we are in the next stage of working out whether they are meeting as often as they should. It is definitely the right question, but I do not have an answer to that in the round, Ms Gallacher. However, I am as keen as you are to know whether that is indeed the case. I think that that will become more apparent now that the committees have initially met. Nick, do you have some additional information on that?

We are all involved in one way or another. As Mr Ruskell knows, in the Government, there is no shortage of meetings or dashboards around where are we with things.

In relation to the United Nations specifically, Scottish Government ministers have taken part in UN events and will continue to do so. We are part of multilateral efforts to ensure that we are upholding the likes of the sustainable development goals, for which there is responsibility across Government. That is the point that I am trying to make—the responsibility is not owned by just one part of Government, such as the department of external affairs; it is reflected across Government.

I will perhaps write to Mr Ruskell through the convener to give a fuller answer because he is quite right to ask for more detail, and I am happy to provide it.

I thank Mr Stewart for what I think is a very encouraging question.

On international development, I think that I am right in saying that we are coming up to an important anniversary with regard to Scotland’s international development work, which goes back to the beginnings of devolution and which has—I think that I am right in saying it—cross-party support. It is, by international development standards, not huge, but it is significant in reflecting the values that we all share, and it is also focused very much on particular countries with which we have historic connections.

The work in those areas largely relates to devolved responsibilities. For example, as far as health and education are concerned, we are doing quite a lot of work on supporting the role of women and have supported a number of projects in that specific sphere. That might be what Mr Stewart is alluding to when he asks about extending development goals—that is, the idea of having a feminist foreign policy, as it has been described. That is being pursued by a number of countries, and Scotland has been working with others to identify how can we do it.

As I said in my opening remarks, we have just published a very significant document on Scotland’s international development. I think that it contains a lot of evidence that shows the good work that has been undertaken. Given that part of the committee’s consideration today relates to evaluation, I am very keen to know whether, when the deputy convener and other colleagues look at the likes of that report, they are satisfied not only that it provides the required information on what has been delivered, but on the reporting mechanism itself. Is all this happening in a way that you think is optimal for your job? After all, you are here to ensure that the Scottish Government, its agencies, its policies and so on are delivering optimally, so I am keen to know whether you feel that you are being well served. I want to be an ally of the committee and ensure that we are providing things in a format that will be of best use to you.

We have just had that report on international development, and we are going to have an updated report on the international network. Similarly, will that report capture what you require? We will, no doubt, learn whether that is the case when you conclude your deliberations, but we are providing very significant reports on the policy and how it is being conducted.

Where, as Mr Stewart alluded to, goals have been extended, the question is this: has that work been properly reflected and reported on, too? I would be keen to hear about that from the committee. I feel that it has been, but is there more that we can do? If so, I am very keen that we do it.

I agree. Only last week, I met Scotland’s leading international development organisations to hear how, from their point of view, the Scottish Government’s policy and funding are working, what they have been working on, what they intend to work on in future and how they would like things to develop. I should say that we were also joined by colleagues from our partner countries, so we are talking about civil society not just in Scotland but in the countries where we operate.

It is hugely important that this is a two-way process. After all, this is not just about how Scotland can help our partner nations such as Malawi, Rwanda and Zaire; it is about what we can learn from those countries, too, and I am very open to such an approach. That meeting happened only last week, and it is something that we will continue to do.