Chamber and committees

Do the errors appear to be intentional or unintentional?

Thank you.

Paragraph 11, which is also on page 4 of the report, states:

“The SFC shared a redacted copy of the report with the principal and chair once it was finalised in August.”

As we heard, it was highly redacted. The paragraph then states:

“Other board members and the senior management team received a redacted copy of the report in October and December 2021 respectively.”

Paragraph 12 states:

“The redacted SFC report was formally considered by the board in December 2021.”

Do we know why it took them until December to formally consider the report?

In paragraph 12, the report states:

“the independent auditor notes in their annual audit report that they ‘have no assurance that the action plan covers all the recommendations made, due to the level of redactions in the [SFC] report.’”

Has the Scottish Funding Council reviewed the action plan? Is it happy that all the action points have been covered? Is it involved in making sure that the action points are actioned?

Is it normal for a body to take out a governance review and then not share its findings with an auditor?

Good morning. Paragraph 10, on page 4 of the report, states:

“Following discussions with ... the Lanarkshire Board ... the SFC commissioned a review of governance at the start of July 2021.”

What prompted the Scottish Funding Council to undertake that review?

I want to make some progress.

If the Scottish Government is as ambitious as it claims to be in its new international framework, it should do everything in its power to follow the lead of the UK. The UK was the first country in the G7 to legislate for net zero emissions.

The FCDO takes advantage of the UK’s combined wealth and power to implement a wide range of humanitarian programmes around the world. As it demonstrated in the recent crisis in Ukraine, the FCDO takes a lead and provides an effective response to global crises. It also supports the wonderful work of Scottish charities such as the Halo Trust, EMMs International and the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund. Scotland plays an important role in the FCDO’s plans, which include bringing around 1,500 additional roles to East Kilbride by 2025.

I want to raise several important points in my speech that need to be reiterated. The first is that the Scottish Government has stated repeatedly that it wants to build and pursue a Scottish foreign policy, distinct from that of the UK, as well as making various commitments to increase its international activities.

We did not see an updated international framework until yesterday, yet it was supposed to be released in 2021. It appears that the cabinet secretary did not approach the issue with sufficient urgency and that the framework was published for the sake of it, as it is too general and does not include any Government commitments. The committee discovered that the publication delay has made it difficult to answer basic questions on the what, why and how of the Scottish Government’s delivery of its international work.

I agree with the committee’s conclusion that the SNP Government must take the required steps to improve transparency and oversight of its international objectives. Among other things, actions should include delivering annual reports on the operation of overseas offices and updating the international framework that was, ultimately, completed yesterday.

I totally agree with what Martin Whitfield said.

I will elaborate on the distribution of Scotland’s worldwide offices and the Scottish Government’s transparency on that. According to the Scottish political analysis firm, European Merchants, there is a lack of a defined plan to justify the opening of an office in Warsaw. The firm’s founder, Anthony Salamone, described the plan as a “strange allocation of resources”. I understand why. If the Scottish Government’s goal is to improve strategic connectivity in the EU, more sensible choices would be Rome, Madrid or The Hague. I had hoped that a new international framework would provide some answers and justification, but it did not.

It is worth acknowledging that, in 2019, the UK had 149 embassies and high commissions abroad, which is the sixth-highest number in the world. Scotland already enjoys the benefit of having a presence in dozens of British embassies and high commissions.

Furthermore, the functioning of Scotland’s international offices must be completely transparent. As we all know, the goals of the offices are, among other things, to encourage investment, assist Scottish enterprises in foreign commerce and raise Scotland’s international profile. However, the SNP sees cultivating an international profile as a major component of its independence goals, which is an obvious waste of taxpayers’ money.

The new international framework goes on about culture being at the centre of everything that the Scottish Government does, but I did not see such ambitions reflected in this year’s budget. For instance, the Scottish Government states that it will continue enhancing Scotland’s international profile

“by promoting our world-leading festivals ... through international touring and festival appearances by the National Performing Companies”,

but the budget for the companies has decreased in real terms over the past two years.

Several critical points were raised in the chamber during the debate. Maurice Golden stated that the SNP Government should work in conjunction with the UK’s FCDO, utilising and maximising the collective resources of the Scottish and UK Governments.

Dean Lockhart highlighted the need to increase our exports into the fastest-growing economies. However, the SNP has failed to support every single free trade agreement that the EU or the UK has entered into over the past 15 years.

Stephen Kerr said that we are part of one of the most successful partnerships in the world.

Clare Adamson mentioned the need for a strategic approach and collaboration between Governments.

Sarah Boyack pointed out that the report covers a lot of areas, so other committees should be involved and much more needs to be done.

Willie Rennie said that we have to get on with delivering rather than making lofty speeches, so he will be glad that I will be finished soon.

Jenni Minto talked about the need to provide a clear rationale with priorities and objectives.

Bill Kidd asked for a focus on the exploitation of women and girls to be at the top of agenda, which was echoed by Ruth Maguire.

Martin Whitfield commented on the challenges that we face and the need for joined-up thinking.

I look forward to seeing the progress that is made following the committee’s report, and hope that progress is made at pace.

The Scottish Conservatives believe that the SNP Government should make better use of the UK’s international infrastructure to promote Scotland, boost trade and help our businesses. Instead, the SNP is preoccupied with developing a foreign policy separate from that of the UK and is focused on its ambitions for independence.

The recurring theme that I have heard from across the chamber is the lack of transparency, which must be addressed. The SNP Government cannot continue promoting its independence plans abroad, and must provide more clarity and detail on its objectives. Given the Scottish Government’s heightened focus on international relations, we need more scrutiny from the Scottish Parliament and greater transparency from the Scottish Government.

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Many of my colleagues in the chamber have raised numerous critical points concerning the committee report’s findings, which I will come back to at the end of my speech.

The Scottish Conservatives recognise the importance of Scotland having an overseas presence. However, that is only true if that does not jeopardise the work of the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and provided that the Scottish Government is not using UK taxpayers’ money to push its independence agenda abroad, as mentioned in the new international framework.

The independence agenda will do that, because we need to work together. We will achieve more if the two Governments work together than if we have a separate agenda for independence.

The Scottish Government must also recognise the significance of being part of the UK on the global stage. The UK benefits from having seats in every major multinational organisation including NATO, the World Bank, the G7 and the UN Security Council. Given that the Scottish Government is attempting to increase Scotland’s soft power, I am perplexed by its desire to separate itself from the international work of the UK Government, particularly since the UK was recently ranked second in the world for soft power, after the United States.

Scotland benefits greatly from the UK’s soft power, including through education, revenues from tourism and foreign investment and an increase in its political influence. For instance, it was the UK’s influence and leadership in tackling climate change that brought the COP26 climate summit to Scotland.