Chamber and committees

I concur with the underlying sentiment of your question, which is about the attractiveness of expanding the network. I have not heard anybody suggest that the places where we are currently located are the wrong places to be. Far from it—the cities and countries that we are in are absolutely the places where we need to be. The next question is: where next? Preceding my time in office, decisions were made that we should look to Copenhagen and then to Warsaw, and those decisions make significant sense.

You are right to ask where we should go after that. You could suggest, given their importance, the Asian subcontinent countries to which we have close cultural and historical connections. You might point to Pakistan and India. You might highlight the importance of Japan as a trading partner. You might pass comment on Australasia as a part of the world to which we have strong historical connections and current trade and tourism connections. You would be right to ask where our presence in Africa is and, when it happens, as I am sure it will, where would be best suited to our having a presence. Of course, we have partner countries there, so should we have a physical presence in one of those, or are there regional capitals where there is a multilateral presence? There are a number of factors that come into play in making any assessment of where next.

I take a different view to you on the scope of the best network that Scotland could have. I have no difficulty in saying that I look forward to Scotland being represented on all the continents of the world. However, even the biggest states in the world have limits to their international networks. There is a process to be worked through for the question of where next. As I signalled to Alasdair Allan, I would be happy to hear members’ views on where they think we should be looking next. There is no monopoly on common sense on that.

I am content with where we are, where we are going next makes perfect sense and I look forward to the network being expanded even further. I am delighted that there seems to be cross-party agreement on that in the committee.

Members of the committee who have had the good fortune to visit Scotland House in Brussels will be aware that there has been a long history of co-operation between different Scottish organisations that have a locus in a European context. In the past in Brussels, there was representation from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and so on.

More can be done on co-ordination. That already takes place between Scotland House and other Scottish agencies that are currently represented on the ground. There is a high level of co-operation among people who answer to Scottish Enterprise internationally.

Alasdair Allan made a point about other strands of work that could be undertaken in an enlarged network. That is absolutely true, and we will look at that. However, that could be the case in places in which we already have a presence. There is very successful Scottish Government representation in Paris, for example. Paris is not just the capital city of France; it is home to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which is in charge of education and culture, both of which are devolved areas. It seems to me that we could broaden and deepen the work that we do in places in which we are already represented, and we can look at places in which we are not yet represented, but perhaps should be.

I am really interested in hearing members’ views on where we should be looking next. Our network is comparable with those of other devolved parts of the world. We are of a comparable size to Québec, Flanders and German Länder, and many such places are increasing their networks.

The committee has taken evidence from colleagues who are in charge of Scotland House operations in a number of capital cities. They are extremely talented people, and I put on record my appreciation of all the work that they and their staff do. We need to grab every opportunity with both hands to ensure that Scotland is represented as widely as possible so that we can enjoy the benefits that such representation brings.

Are you talking about the Scottish Government’s international framework?

I am fully aware of the issue that you raise. Again, I signal to John Primrose that he might want to comment at the end of my answer.

I think that everybody appreciates that all schemes that involve us dispensing taxpayers’ money are subject to review. That is a common practice. We need to ensure that we are actually delivering against the aims that are set for particular projects or funding streams. The evaluation came to the view that the scheme had not delivered against all the criteria for what the Scottish Government wished to deliver on the ground or the impact that we wanted to see. That is why we review the projects that we support.

My previous ministerial colleague Jenny Gilruth updated the Scottish Parliament on the thematic approach that we are now taking with the focus on women and girls. We are going to continue to dispense small grant funds, but it is not going to work in the same way as it has until now, because there has been an evaluation, and the recommendation is that we should do things differently.

The feedback that we have had from partner countries has been positive. I will share one example with you. The Government in Malawi has requested that Scotland finances a smaller number of larger programmes, which will help it to track progress and manage alignment with its aims. We are trying our best to work with our partners on the ground and ensure that the projects that we support work better for them, but also that they work in line with the strictures that we place on the projects.

In essence, we want to make sure that what we are committed to is working. If it is not working in the way that we intended, we have to pivot and ensure that we deliver in the way that we want with our partners in our partner countries. John, is that a fair assessment?

On a general point, as you know, a refresh of intergovernmental relations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations was announced only a few weeks ago. You rightly point out that there was an agreement at the onset of devolution that underscores the opportunities that devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government, can pursue on the international stage.

That is exactly what we do—we focus largely on the areas of devolved responsibility to maximise our opportunities internationally. Do we need to specifically revisit that agreement? I am not currently involved in that subject. To be frank, in the medium term, it would be much better for us not to have any form of restriction whatever on Scotland’s ability when it comes to European and international policy, and I look forward to that being secured during this session of Parliament. However, in the meantime, we will do everything that we can to make the most of the opportunities that we have. You might be aware that most Scotland House operations are currently co-located within UK embassies, and there is a high degree of co-operation and collegiality. I welcome that, and I know that our colleagues in the Scotland House networks value it. I hope that colleagues in the foreign office value it.

To answer your question, we should always keep our formal relationships under review. My last thought on the issue is that I do not lay the greatest store on such formal arrangements, given that we have had them until now in the devolved settlement and, frankly, they have not worked tremendously well because there has not been a willingness to let them work very well. One first needs to be minded to work positively with others, and the good news is that, on the ground internationally, that happens already. If there are any specific observations or suggestions about the arrangements that were entered into after devolution, I am happy to take a look at them.

It is more than a thought; it is absolutely right. That is what we are doing. One of the areas in which we are focusing our efforts relates to women and girls. That will be a very important factor with regard to taking a thematic approach, and there can and should be others. I will invite John Primrose, who has a great deal of experience in the area, to come in at the end of my comments and underline my points.

We are taking a thematic approach, but we should not be hidebound by that, because we can, I hope, do a number of things at the same time. Although the women and girls strand is very important, there are others that will also be key priorities. We are among the world’s leading countries when it comes to renewables and our climate ambitions, so that could and should be a key approach to our work.

Would John Primrose like to add to what I have said?

That is absolutely understood, convener. I was just ending my peroration.

The UK Government’s proposed bill will impact on the work of the Scottish Government and its offices, and on the work of the committee. It is unacceptable that the UK Government seems ready to unveil sweeping measures that will have such profound consequences for Scotland, its Government, the Parliament and the committee with such little discussion with, or respect for, the Parliament and the Government. The manner in which we were informed about the document to which I have referred makes a mockery of the UK Government’s recent commitment to reset relationships with the devolved Governments.

It is nice to see you, Mr Golden, and to see that your amazing clock is still in its place to tell me where I am with the timing of this evidence session.

At the recent climate change talks in Glasgow, I spent a lot of time speaking to colleagues from around the world. Scotland is held in extremely high regard because of what we are achieving, which I hope is not being done in a way that is preachy to the rest of the world. We are very fortunate that we have won on the natural resources lottery twice. We won once with oil, but we are now pivoting away from hydrocarbons, as we know we must. We are extremely fortunate to have a disproportionate amount of renewables potential, and we are trying to make the most of it. I do not think that that is a party-political issue, because we all know that we have to grab the opportunity with both hands.

In that area, we have a lot that we can share with countries that are trying to do their best, as we all are, to deal with the climate emergency. For example, I spoke to Malawians, including the Malawian President, who was here in Edinburgh at an event that I was speaking at. They are exceptionally keen to work with the Scottish Government so that we can share best practice and any learnings that we have. Just as importantly, it is about what we can learn from our partner countries. We do not know everything and we do not have the answers to everything, and there will be things that we can learn, too.

It is right that we need to do everything to ensure that we reach the targets that we have set ourselves, but we have set targets that are among the highest in the world, and most other countries in the world are significantly behind where we are. Therefore, we still hold a leadership role, and we have a responsibility to continue to do everything that we can on the renewables front. Working with our partner countries is one of the great prizes that we should focus on in our international development priorities.

Travel restrictions have meant that colleagues and I have not been able to travel to speak to people on the ground in our partner countries. However, during my most recent visit to London, I had the benefit of meeting diplomats from those countries at Scotland House, which is our excellent representative office. From speaking to the diplomats from our African partner countries, I know the tremendous appreciation that there is of the international development work that Scotland does. However, you are right to point out that there has been a review to ensure that what we deliver on the ground is, frankly, what people in those countries are looking for rather than perhaps priorities that are made in northern Europe and what we might think is important for our friends and colleagues elsewhere in the world.

On the reorientation of our principles of international development in the review, I can highlight four changes. One is to build back fairer and stronger. That is about an evolution of our funding and restructuring our current funding schemes.

Secondly, there is the global south programme panel. In our programme for government, we announced that we would establish a panel of experts by experience who principally work and reside in the global south. That goes back to the point that I tried to make about making sure that we have key input from people in the countries that we work with, led at ministerial level, to help us to ensure that global south voices are properly heard.

The third area is updating our funding criteria to ensure that we actually deliver that which we want to deliver and have the impact that we want to have in our partner countries.

The fourth area is ensuring that our international development offer is focused on the best matches and the asks from the partner countries that we work in.

I am going to read something out, because I think that it is quite important:

“Offices use a range of both qualitative and quantitative indicators to measure their performance. Evaluation reports for the international offices in 2019-20 have been published under FOI, as has the evaluation report for Scotland House Brussels in 2018-19.”

There is a continuous evaluation process to make sure that the work that is undertaken by the Scottish offices is measurable, and that process is transparent and is available to the public. It is good that people are aware of that. One is aware of the five key outcomes that we ask of the network, the fact that there is an evaluation process and the fact that it is publicly available.

In addition, it has been really helpful—this is where the committee has performed an important function—to see the people who are actually out there, doing the job. I know that you have had evidence from colleagues from Scotland House in London, Scotland House Brussels and our office in Berlin, and no doubt you will speak to others in the future. It has been helpful just to hear from them about what they do and how they do it.

The thing that I find tremendously encouraging is meeting not just the people who run the representative offices that we have, but the other members of the team. Last week, I spent an afternoon meeting, via a Teams call, the staff of Scotland House Brussels, who are an amazing and enthusiastic international polyglot staff complement, and they are there, working every day to promote Scotland across the piece. We should be very grateful for what they do.

It is now 20 minutes past 11, and I know that I am getting to the end of my time, so I will abuse my position by again saying a big thank you to everybody who does their best to promote all of our interests—our economy, our culture, education and all of that. They are doing a great job, and long may that continue.