Official Report 761KB pdf
A warm welcome back to committee. Our second agenda item today is to take evidence on the Scottish Government’s international offices report.
We are joined in the room by Nick Leake, and we are joined online by Catherine Reeves and John Devine. Nick Leake is deputy director of Scotland House Brussels, Catherine Reeves is head of the Berlin office, and John Devine is head of the Scottish affairs office in Canada, all from the Scottish Government. A warm welcome to you all.
I invite Nick Leake to make a short opening statement before we move to questions from the committee.
Thank you, convener. Age is catching up on me: last time I was in this room, I could see you, but now I need my glasses to see you. I cannot read with them on, so I will put them on and off throughout the session.
Thank you very much for inviting us. We welcome and relish the opportunity to talk about our work and the Scottish Government international network as often as we can. There is only a small number of us, and we are not back in Scotland very often, so it is great that you have asked the Government to publish an international report on the strategy and our network, which we have done for the last two years. This year we have expanded the report to allow you to scrutinise the implementation of the Scottish Government’s international strategy, which includes but is not limited to the international network.
Everything we do overseas is aimed to advance Scotland’s priorities, the First Minister’s four priorities and the three themes of the international strategy: economy, trade and investment; climate change, biodiversity and renewable energy; and reputation, influence and relationships.
I know that the committee has had a focus on outcomes and measures in previous evidence sessions. We think that we have better quantitative data in the economic space than in the other areas, which we are still working on. I used to work for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and I have done a number of overseas postings with that department. It is difficult sometimes to measure the impact of diplomacy, and the FCDO does not manage it particularly well either. We recently contributed to a publication by a Washington DC think tank, which was sent to the committee by the cabinet secretary. It covered international outcomes and what they call subnational diplomacy.
We think that we have a bit more information on the economic aspects. You can see the export and investment statistics, and you can see the assessment on gross value added from major events held in Scotland, which are quoted in the report, for example. However, we are working on other aspects to respond directly to the challenge that the committee has fairly given us and the helpful recommendations that you have also given us.
The report this time includes the output of the biannual review of the Scottish connections framework, as well as a narrative and financing report on our official development assistance spend. On the second aspect, the three of us are probably not beautifully placed to answer the questions, but if we cannot, we will be able to get answers for you. Obviously, none of us works in that area.
I am here representing the team that I lead in Scotland House Brussels. My colleagues, Catherine Reeves and John Devine, are joining me from Scottish Government offices in Germany and Canada. You have heard in recent years from other colleagues in offices in the USA, in China, in Denmark and in London. We are keen to continue the engagement and dialogue with the committee and to assist members in understanding more about the work of our international offices. We appreciate the support that we have had from you for our work.
Our offices remain small. We think that they deliver disproportionately to their cost, which is less than 0.02 per cent of Scottish Government’s overall resource spending plans. The annual report this year covers much more than just the work of our teams; it looks at the delivery of the international strategy overall. Much of that is relevant to our work. Many of us have a focus on renewable energy in the green transition, for example, and on trade and investment in our day-to-day work. All of us are involved in work engaging the Scottish diaspora in support of the Scottish connections framework.
As I said earlier, there are other areas where there might be less overlap with our teams, such as development programmes with partner countries in Africa and Asia. If we are unable to answer those questions, we will be able to get any additional information that the committee would find helpful, but we might need to send that afterwards. I hope that that is okay.
Thank you for that opening statement—we will move to questions.
The annual report states:
“Scotland enjoys a strong reputation in Brussels … Scotland House uses its presence at the heart of the European district to promote Scotland’s aims and develop strong and enduring partnerships with EU institutions and others in Brussels.”
We have visited Scotland House, which has supported the committee on our trips to Brussels and in presenting our trade and co-operation agreement report. You also mentioned the priorities of reputation, influence and relationships. The Scottish Government has quite different views about how it would like to engage with Europe post Brexit. We would like stronger integration and the reintroduction of youth mobility, for example. How does Scotland House articulate views that are distinct from those of the UK Government? I will come to you Nick Leake first, and then to Catherine Reeves.
That is a really good question. As you know, I worked on the other side of the roundabout for the UK mission before I came across to Scotland House. It is definitely true that, when I walked across the road, my reputation in Brussels went up by quite a lot. This was a few years ago, but my reputation and the access I was able to get went up by quite a lot.
The UK Government’s reset is a part of our work, although we also follow and look at what the European Union does that is not connected with its relationship with the UK. The aims that the UK Government has in its reset are shared by the Scottish Government. I think that we would want to be more ambitious, but the decision that ministers have come to and that we follow is that we should be supportive of the UK Government’s aims to improve its relationship with the European Union. We think we are able to do that.
Ahead of the summit last May, we published seven Scottish Government position papers, which were all shared and discussed with the UK Government in advance so that there were no surprises for UK Government colleagues in that work. I think that they found them helpful. The outcomes of the summit covered a lot of the areas that we had prioritised. To be fair again to my former colleagues on the other side of the roundabout, that shows that they listened to us, which is good. Obviously, there are other areas where we might have wanted to go further, and it is possible the UK Government also wants to go further perhaps in slower time. I think that there is a difference of ambition, but the objective to improve the relationship is a shared one and so we are able to work in a collaborative way to do that.
As I said, my reputation and my access went up quite a lot when I went across the roundabout to Scotland House, and we are able to use the reputation and networks that Scotland enjoys to promote the outcomes that are shared with the UK Government. There is a collaborative effort on the shared priorities. People in Brussels are aware that the Scottish Government wants to see more ambition. We also want to see more ambition from the EU side, as well as the UK side. That is set out in a constructive way as a challenge to both sides and, hopefully, it encourages them to move a bit further.
You will have seen we have published a position paper on the outcomes of the summit and the next stages of the negotiations, which we are currently discussing both in Brussels and with colleagues from London.
Thank you. Catherine, do you want to come in?
Thank you, convener. That is a really pertinent question in the geography I am working in—in Germany. It is fair to say that Germany took Brexit extremely hard. For my predecessors, who established this office, there was definitely a differential advantage, which I do not think they even had to seek but just occurred naturally, from the widespread knowledge in Germany that Scotland’s voting on Brexit had been different from what went on in the rest of the UK.
I think that that advantage persists. There is a certain warmth that is spontaneously felt towards Scotland in Germany, which dates from that differential voting outcome and which we are still seeing some benefits from. That said, it is not something that we go around talking about proactively because, as Nick Leake has said, it is in all our interests to see some rapprochement between the UK and the EU and between the UK and Germany. That is after a pretty difficult period in the relationship at UK level with Germany.
That is starting to bear fruit, which we saw in July with the signing of the Kensington treaty. While that is an initiative of the UK Government and federal German Government, it gives us the vehicle to benefit some of Scotland’s interests in a number of areas, such as space, energy, science and tech. It is definitely to be celebrated that the relationship is warming up.
John, could you explain to us how Scotland is viewed in your Canada office and whether it is viewed differently from the UK? What do you see is different?
Good morning to the committee, and greetings from a snowy Ottawa.
Scotland is in Canada’s DNA and, of the 40 million Canadians, about 4 million to 5 million claim Scottish heritage. We are therefore viewed incredibly affectionately here: we are viewed as family. One of the great challenges for my colleagues and I is to figure out the tangible outcomes from the wall of affection that we meet wherever we go.
Like Nick Leake, I used to be a diplomat for the UK in the FCDO. This is my first job for the Scottish Government, and it is a real marked difference to be in Canada as a Scot and never have a negative experience anywhere. I am constantly welcomed—and, as I said, the real art and challenge is taking that affection and turning it into a tangible outcome.
Thank you very much. We move on to questions from the committee, and I will bring in Mr Brown first.
Good morning. First, my single greatest achievement in my less than illustrious ministerial career was having haggis, albeit slightly modified, put back on sale in Canada. That was some years ago. We still have to crack the US market.
John Devine, as part of North America, are you making substantial plans for the world cup? There is the potential that Scotland could be based in Canada. Whether it is or not, if you look at what was done in Germany, the international office there started planning from the draw right the way through to where it always ends for Scotland: the group stage. The tournament surely provides a fantastic opportunity. Could you say anything about what preparations are in train so far?
Thank you for the question. It is hugely relevant. Of course, it is fantastic news that Scotland will be coming to North America. Wherever they play the group games, whether in Canada, the US or Mexico, it is a huge opportunity. The Scottish Government has been planning for this for a long time. Since Scotland qualified, I have been in a number of meetings with colleagues back in headquarters looking at any number of aspects, from the practicalities of Scotland playing here and the tartan army visiting, to what we can do to maximise that for Scotland, not just through a VisitScotland or tourism lens, but anything associated with trade and investment. Those discussions are on-going.
10:15I came back late last night from meeting with some businesspeople in Toronto. On the way down to Toronto, on the train, I was on a number of Teams calls with Scottish Government colleagues about this issue. The planning is already at an advanced stage. There will be more to say, I think, over the coming weeks and months, especially after the announcement tomorrow about which group Scotland will be in and then, on Saturday, about where they will be playing their games.
It is likely that, en route to the final, Scotland will be in Canada at some point. I wonder whether you have taken lessons from what happened in Germany, because that was an astonishing boost to Scotland. As was said earlier, Scotland enjoys a pretty warm reputation there. I certainly remember being in the ambassador’s residence and being embraced by a senior member of the Christian Democratic Union who said, “We like our Scottish friends because they want to stay with us.” Those were her exact words. She was looking at the ambassador when she said it. We have a good reputation there. We often are not aware of the number of Germans who come, in particular, to the Highlands in Scotland. Are your plans as detailed at this stage as they were in advance of the draw for Germany and have you learned from that?
We have had some initial meetings about what learnings we can apply from the Euros to the World Cup and, certainly, I well remember watching that draw and almost not being able to believe our luck. I say that in terms of the visibility afforded to Scotland by playing Germany in the opening match, although perhaps the score line suggests that, in terms of football, we were not as lucky as we thought we were.
Yes, there is definitely learning from that that we can apply to Canada. The big message that I would take, which was less clear up front when we went into the Euros because it had been so long since the Scotland men’s team had played a big international tournament like that, is that we had not appreciated just what an impact the tartan army would make. There were 200,000 of them in Germany and the Germans absolutely fell in love with them.
If you do not mind my reading briefly, convener, at the end of the group stage, so just before the match against Hungary, the embassy received an open letter from someone who signed himself off as a new Scotland fan in Oldenburg in Lower Saxony. Incidentally, Scotland was not even playing there. The letter was pleading with the Scottish fans to stay on, regardless of the outcome of their final match, because Germany was so much enjoying hosting them. One of the things that the writer said was,
“You have already done Scotland proud and done your message a great service, because this positive publicity for Scotland could not have been achieved in ten years.”
I think that that is true. The bounce to Scotland’s visibility and reputation that came as a result of the great behaviour by the fans and the joy that they brought to the tournament must not be underestimated. Indeed, VisitScotland has done quite a lot of work since then to translate that into practical campaigns. I think that they did a specific piece of public relations around the “No Scotland, no party” slogan.
Now that we can anticipate, in the World Cup context, that that is how our fans are perceived and what an asset they are, I am sure that there are things that my colleagues in North America can do proactively to make sure that we are ready to capitalise on that.
I think that you have answered the question for both sides, in Germany and in Canada. You are quite right to say that the boost is related to the fans and their behaviour and conduct, of course.
John Devine, this committee talks to Historic Environment Scotland and we have just been speaking to people about Creative Scotland, neither of whom—I cannot speak for the whole committee—seem to have a huge presence in North America. In relation to HES, for instance, the diaspora in North America could help to contribute to the refurbishment, maintenance or on-going support of various buildings around the country and I am not aware that HES taps into that much. We have also heard from Creative Scotland that they do not have capital funds and so on, and I am sure that they could do more in North America. Is that something that your office does at all? I know that that may be more based in the US, if it is based at all, but what experience do you have of that?
There are a number of institutions—certainly those founded by Scots, including the universities—that do a number of philanthropic-style activities. I am thinking particularly of the Saltire Foundation in Canada that brings Scots and Scottish students for internships and work placements in Canada. In terms of big philanthropic donors from North America sending money to Scotland, I think that that is a challenge and it is not an area that we are tracking hugely in Canada but, obviously, if there were opportunities, we would prosecute them.
That is pretty much the same response that we got from HES. I think that you have to go after some of those opportunities and they are quite niche, but thanks for that.
My last question is to Nick Leake, because I do not want him to feel that he has been left out. Obviously one of the main purposes of the international strategy is to encourage investment in Scotland. It is down there in the report.
Scotland currently has the highest levels of foreign direct investment of any part of the UK, apart from the south-east of England, and has done very well for over a decade now on that. We also have lower unemployment than the rest of the UK, a better productivity record more recently, and now a good international credit score, as well. Are you able to measure how our offices have contributed to that?
Thank you, Mr Brown. Just before I answer, because I will answer, you mentioned haggis earlier and the issues in Canada. We run an annual Burns dinner and other events in Brussels at which we serve haggis. Haggis is not banned in the European Union, but because the market is so small, the level of bureaucracy is a deterrent to people who want to export it from Scotland. We have had to teach the chef at the UK residence how to make haggis, so that we can serve it at the Burns dinner. That is why what is called the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—the food and drink agreement between the UK and the EU—is so important: it will unlock the opportunity for us to serve real haggis from Scotland at our Burns dinners again. It is an important initiative—
This committee visited one of the haggis manufacturers not far from here and heard the same story about difficulties being exacerbated since Brexit. I am sorry; please go on.
It just shows how these things matter on a daily basis.
You asked about measuring the impact on trade and investment. The other offices that have Scottish Development International people working in them are able to do that. They are able to track investments that go into Scotland as a result of the work of those offices and you will see some of the numbers in the annual report.
Brussels has always been a bit different because the EU institutions are a political entity, and they are our main audience in Brussels. We have, however, started to expand into the trade and investment area. We have noticed that there are Belgian businesses, particularly in the offshore wind sector, that can be important to Scotland and the port of Antwerp has a vision that it will be the route for the import of hydrogen, which might come from Scotland, to go to the Ruhrgebiet in Germany and then the export of the carbon which might come to Scotland for carbon capture, usage and storage.
There are real opportunities in Belgium. From next April, Scottish Development International will have two people in Scotland House in Brussels, partly to track those investment opportunities in Belgium and elsewhere—it will have a broader remit—and partly also because one of the things that we have learned is that, where we have existing investors or potential investors in Scotland, being in touch with them around the world is beneficial in making them feel Scottish. Many of those companies have offices in Brussels. We have learned to do that from Scotland House, and we do it a bit, but SDI will be much better at it and much better at providing the business intelligence about those opportunities. We are excited about that and about taking our trade and investment work to the next level. As I say, however, the other offices are able to give you chapter and verse about numbers of investments, pounds, shillings and pence and jobs that they have created in Scotland. We will try and get better at that in Brussels, as well.
Can I please have no more speculation that Scotland might get past the group stage in the World Cup. Thank you. Mr Harvie.
I promise not to talk about football, convener. I am probably the only member of the committee who can be trusted on that.
Good morning. I will ask about the interaction between the Scottish Government’s international priorities and the UK context, in which formal international relations are reserved. I am aware that some aspects of that question are better put to politicians, but from colleagues who are here I want to understand the level of discretion that Scotland’s international offices have to manage those tensions and whether they have come up, rather than necessarily getting into the politics of it.
For example, Scotland is a member of the under2 coalition, climate being a high priority. From 2022 to 2024, I think, Scotland was one of the co-chairs of that coalition. Although there is probably a bit more alignment now between the Scottish Government’s and the UK Government’s priorities on climate, during that period it probably was not the case that there was such strong alignment.
In what ways do the international offices encounter issues where there may be a mismatch—not necessarily a conflict, but different priorities—between Scottish and UK international objectives in the relationships that you seek to foster and to what extent do the international offices have discretion to deal with those issues, or do they have to come back to ministers for a steer?
Thank you, Mr Harvie. That is an interesting question. John Devine and Catherine Reeves will be better placed to answer in relation to SDI.
In Scotland House in Brussels, we have hosted ministerial meetings of the under2 coalition and we have never had an issue with the UK Government in doing that. We stay in our lane, so we talk about the under2 coalition and climate and things that the Scottish Government is perfectly entitled to have a view on, but we have never had an issue with the UK Government on anything that we have done in that area.
When I raised that specific example, I was conscious that, for example, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are members of the coalition. It is not just that there is no entity that could join to represent England as a nation but, even at city or regional level, there is no membership from within England of the coalition.
I think that they would definitely be welcome. It is an important example. In my current position, there is a Department for Business and Trade team that works to Brussels and, obviously, we do not yet have SDI officials. We are able to work quite closely with the DBT. My experience with the DBT on the UK side is that they are really good at knowing the opportunities in the market that they serve, whether that is Germany or Belgium or Canada or wherever.
They are a bit less good about knowing the strengths in the home market. That is my experience of them. SDI is better at that. I think that Scotland is just a better size and you can know what the emerging future companies will be, where the future opportunities will be and where the future companies will come from that will internationalise. There is a real synergy between what SDI does and what the DBT does which, when it works, is impactful.
Catherine Reeves, can you hear me? Do you want to say anything?
I missed a bit of that, convener. But, yes, I was hoping to come in, so if that is an invitation to come in, then I will happily take it.
I think that there are areas where Scotland does things particularly well. I think of the example that you raised, Mr Harvie, of the under2 coalition. Clearly, Scotland’s goal to achieve net zero is five years in advance of the rest of the UK, so that is an area where we can be particularly proud of the pace and the leadership with which we are taking that forward. Some of the particular things that Scotland has pioneered in thought leadership on loss and damage, for example, are now taking off in a big way across Europe and Germany has committed significant amounts of money. That stemmed from Scotland raising it on the agenda at the Conference of the Parties in Glasgow.
10:30I think that it is true that there are areas where we can specialise or where our thought leadership or the natural resources that we offer can be a differential advantage. On that wider point on relationships with UK Government colleagues in an embassy context, they are very collegiate. I was speaking to the ambassador only on Monday about the success of our St Andrew’s day event and one of the first things that the UK ambassador to Germany did before he took up post was to visit all the devolved nations including Scotland. He met the research sector and the hydrogen sector. From that point of view and given that, obviously, we are operating in areas of devolved power, whereas the UK takes responsibility for those areas of power that are reserved, I think, as Nick Leake says, that we are able to stay in our lanes and I think that relationships at official level tend to be collegiate, as I said.
I wonder whether I can follow that up by asking colleagues to explore a certain scenario. At UK level, the main Opposition party in Parliament is seeking to repeal climate legislation, and there is a political party polling very strongly for the next election whose policy is led by outright climate change denial and conspiracy theory. To what extent would the Scottish Government’s international offices still be able to adequately function and deliver the Scottish Government’s policy in that area if a UK Government came in that was pursuing the polar opposite agenda?
I will have a go at that. It is our job to represent the Government of the day—and, in this case, the Scottish Government of the day—within the law. If our ministers wanted us to take a more activist role in such an area, we would try to do that, but we would need to do so within the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 and the concordat.
We could not suddenly go absent without leave and talk about matters that are correctly reserved, but we could—though I hope that we do not have to—adopt a more robust attitude with the UK Government. I think that that would make things harder, given that it is much bigger than us in every area that we work in. In any case, it is more impactful for Scotland when we work collaboratively. However, if ministers wanted us to go down that route, we could do so, provided it was within the law.
Going back to Mr Harvie’s original question about the relationship between the Scottish Government and the UK Government in this space, I just wanted to give a positive example from the economic and trade side. Since the new Canadian Government came in under Mark Carney, one of its stated public aims has been to diversity the Canadian economy away from an overreliance on the US and, as part of that, the UK and Canadian Governments agreed an economic and trade working group over the summer.
I sit on the FCDO platform—to use the jargon—in Canada, which means that I work within the UK high commission. No more than a few feet away from me sits the UK head of trade for Canada; I speak to her regularly, if not daily, and she is ensuring that this is all being looked at through a Whitehall lens and that she is bringing in not just my views from a Scottish perspective but the views of our devolved Government colleagues in the Welsh Government and Northern Irish Executive who are also in Canada. There is a good level of co-operation on important issues with good outcomes for the Scottish economy.
Thank you.
Good morning. Before I start my own questioning, I want to go back to Patrick Harvie’s first question about your role and relationship with Government. Your role as officers is to promote the Scottish Government’s priorities and objectives and, obviously, Scotland’s interests abroad, but thinking back to the previous evidence session, I wonder whether you have had any guidance from the Government on which of its priorities should be promoted to a domestic audience or to us today.
I suppose that our audience is primarily the audience overseas, not the domestic audience, and typically, it would be ministers and others in Scotland who would speak to the domestic audience for us.
That said, we work directly for Scotland’s domestic priorities, whether they be the First Minister’s four priorities or the three themes in the international strategy that I set out earlier. We are not doing anything different in that respect, and we are certainly following the Scottish Government’s domestic priorities, but our communications audience is the audience for our posts.
That does not mean that people in Scotland do not read our LinkedIn material. I know that the cabinet secretary is an avid follower of our Twitter feed, which is great, because it means that he is seeing the things that we do and the events that we are holding. However, the target audience for what we do is the people in Brussels, in the EU institutions and, to a lesser extent, in the member states.
Some of us here might argue that the cabinet secretary would be better to direct his attention to certain other issues that we have been covering today and in previous weeks.
I probably did not make myself clear. Ahead of this session, were you steered at all by the Government or Government officials on some of the areas that you should be focusing on?
I have in front of me a pack that contains the international strategy; the report on subnational diplomacy that was sent to the committee and which we contributed to; the national outcomes framework and the committee’s report on that; your report on your inquiry into the Scottish Government’s international work; and reports of your previous evidence-taking sessions with other heads of international office. That was the material I was given by officials to prepare for this session.
In addition, I have had a couple of meetings with Scottish Government colleagues who work with this committee to try to ensure that we are well-briefed on the matters that committee members have been raising in committee meetings and in Parliament more generally, so that we are in a position to respond to the issues that you raise. However, we have not been told, “You have to say this.” It is not some Peter Mandelson-style “This is the line that you must take.”
Thank you very much—
I think that Catherine Reeves wants to respond to your question.
I will be brief, because I think that the discussion is moving on. However, just to supplement what Nick Leake said about our comms, I would agree that our audience is international rather than domestic, but when it comes to the impact that we endeavouring to have, I would say that that is targeted very squarely at Scotland domestically. As for how that is governed in practice, we are led by the First Minister’s four priorities, particularly, in my geographical area, what we can do on climate and the economy.
Within that, a degree of trust is vested in us to assess and analyse where we can get most bang for Scotland’s buck, so to speak, within those geographies. That informs our business planning, which gets signed off via our network management team at senior civil service level. That guides what we do day to day in country.
Thank you for that, Catherine.
I think that John Devine wants to come in, too.
I was only going to add, on top of what Catherine Reeves and Nick Leake have said, that any diplomat anywhere in the world is always looking to draw that thread between what they are doing and its domestic relevance. For me sitting in Canada, it is absolutely about the economic growth space and the trading and investment relationship between Scotland and Canada. After all, Canadian pension funds now own Glasgow and Aberdeen airports, as well as a significant proportion of the electricity grid in Scotland, so the relationship with those funds that I speak to, and which colleagues back in Scotland speak to, is absolutely relevant to economic growth in Scotland. That is one of the key messages that we would always want to put across with regard to the domestic relevance of what we are doing in the international space.
Thank you for that.
Nick Leake, you represent the Government of the day and, depending on the desires of the Government of the day, there could be a more activist or proactive role. Obviously, one of the Scottish Government’s priorities—albeit maybe not one of the people’s priorities—is another referendum on independence. How does that fit in with the work that you do? How is that a driver? Have officials or the Scottish Government directly promoted that to you or asked you to push it? Where does it fit within your day job, as it were?
The formal answer is that the constitution is reserved, so independence is not an issue that Scotland House Brussels pushes—and we do not. I do not run events on independence, and we do not go around talking about it. That does not mean that we are not asked about it, and, when we are asked about it, we try to give factual and clear responses.
It is not a huge part of what we do. To be effective and impactful in Brussels, you need to focus on the issues that matter to the European Union, because that is what people are dealing with daily. They are stuck in working groups—I have been there myself previously—arguing about article 12 of whatever directive they are talking about. If we want to get a Scottish priority, whether it is in the growth economy space or the net zero climate space, we need to keep at it. We need to be present. We need to keep talking about it. We also need expertise, and we need to bring that expertise from Scotland to come and meet the relevant people in the European Commission or other parts of Brussels.
Just while I have been back these past two days, I have met Scottish Financial Enterprise, Universities Scotland, the Scotch Whisky Association, the Law Society of Scotland, Prosper and the chief scientist for health. Those are all key Scottish Government priorities that we promote in Brussels, and we are pretty busy doing that. Those are the areas where we have the most impact for the Scottish Government and for the domestic priorities that the Scottish Government pushes. That is where we focus.
So, you answer questions on independence but it is not necessarily on the agenda for the conversations you are having with—
We do not do anything proactively to promote independence, but we are asked about it sometimes.
An area that is very important to my region is fishing, and there is obviously a relationship with the EU on fishing matters, which we are seeing at the moment. Do you have discussions with European colleagues on that? How do you work with the UK Government on what is a very important issue?
It is a very important issue for Scotland. Scotland has a huge fishing industry, including as a proportion of the UK’s, so we are disproportionately important in that area for the UK Government.
I think that the UK Government involves us in the annual fishing negotiations. We have had issues on sand eel closures and marine protected areas, in relation to which Scotland has had to defend its own decisions to the European Union. The UK Government has allowed us to do that, and we have been able to do that quite effectively in both cases.
10:45We have a very close relationship with the colleagues who deal with fishing in the UK mission to the EU, but that has to be founded on an understanding on their side that, although Scotland is a certain proportion of the UK economy, Scotland’s fishing sector is a much bigger proportion of the UK’s. Therefore, we feel that we should have more influence over policy in that area, and we encourage our UK Government colleagues to take that properly into account.
Following on from the previous point—you said that you are not looking proactively at independence—obviously, the Scottish Government’s position is that Scotland should have more of a role in that, and ultimately, in the future, a full role in that. However, within Europe and within the common fisheries policy, you have not had any conversations about Scotland’s future membership of the common fisheries policy. That is not a proactive or responsive role that you are taking.
No, we have not done that.
Can I ask one last question? As I said, I represent the Highlands and Islands, and we have lots of small businesses with a very entrepreneurial spirit. How do you ensure that smaller businesses are covered? Is that done through the existing bodies that you are working with in Scotland? We often see larger companies with big deals, but those small businesses are actually really important in terms of growth for our area as well. How do you make sure they are covered?
Yes, it definitely is. On the UK-EU side, there is something called the domestic advisory group, which includes a number of those bodies, and we try to make sure that Scotland is properly represented there—for example, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is a member of that group. The group very regularly makes representations to us about the interests of small businesses.
The SPS agreement—the agriculture, food and drink agreement between the UK and the EU, which we have been really active in trying to promote—is a response to a message that we have had that, whether you are a fish processor or an exporter of agricultural products from Scotland, the extra bureaucracy is really problematic. If that agreement takes the extra bureaucracy away, that is definitely responding to the representations we have had on behalf of smaller Scottish businesses in those sectors.
We can definitely get better at making sure that the organisations we talk to bring up the interests of smaller businesses. As I mentioned, I went to see the Scotch Whisky Association, and it was not talking about companies the size of Diageo; it was talking about the smaller distilleries and the issues that they face around European Union labelling. If different EU member states have different national requirements for the label on a bottle of whisky, that is fine for Diageo, but it is not fine for a small distillery in your constituency.
It is an area where we are trying to be active in making sure that the EU single market upholds the interests of those smaller players in Scotland. The Scotch Whisky Association told me pretty strongly that we that have to do more in that area, so we will.
Catherine Reeves and John Devine want to come in as well.
Yes, just briefly. I would say that the Highlands and Islands region disproportionately punches above its weight in terms of its visibility in Germany because of some of what is on offer there and its interest to the German market. This autumn, we led three back-to-back economy missions: two on energy and one on space. In all three of those, Highlands and Islands businesses and small businesses were prominent players. On the space side, there is the prospect of a vertical launch from Scottish soil, which is of great interest to Germany. On the energy side, places such as Shetland have these nascent offers on hydrogen, as well as well-established offers on offshore wind and potentially on carbon capture and storage. Therefore, the area is writ large in the German context.
I just want to come in on Mr Halcro Johnston’s point about small businesses, particularly in the Highlands and Islands. One of our key relationships is with the Government of Nova Scotia, and it is mainly around the energy space, tidal and offshore wind—Nova Scotia is starting out on its own offshore wind journey. One of the really interesting things in all of that is the use of Gaelic, and we are looking at how small businesses in Scotland and in Nova Scotia can maximise their use of Gaelic as a discriminator to increase potential revenue—not just through new trading between themselves, but in a wider context. That is one of the on-going discussions that we are having with the Nova Scotia Government. In fact, I am having a Teams call with them tomorrow, to pick up on that point.
Mr Kerr, did you have a question?
Yes, I just wanted to say to John Devine, in Ottawa, that three things have impressed me out of the things that you have said. The first thing is that you obviously have a very long and distinguished diplomatic career, which I totally respect. The second thing is that you got out of bed at some unearthly hour to appear before the committee, which is highly commendable—or maybe not. The third thing, which I think is very important, is that you talked about the integrated working that you enjoy with the representatives of the United Kingdom in the high commission and elsewhere in Canada. I just wondered whether you would give us a concrete example of where that working together produced a win for Scotland.
Thank you. I did the sound check for the committee at 3.30, but I am an early riser anyway and I have had a cup of tea, so I am not doing too badly.
As I say, we are—in the jargon—on the FCDO’s platform and we work closely. In terms of tangible outcomes, I would go back to the point about this step-up in the trading relationship between the UK and Canada. In the past year, I have seen such an incredible change in Canada, given the international trading context, the context of Canada’s relationship with the US and the fact that Canada is looking to diversify its economy away from that relationship.
Mark Carney has said publicly that the two areas where he wants to focus most in order to diversify that economy are the UK and the European Union. I am in regular discussion with the UK Government departments in Whitehall, as are my Scottish Government colleagues in Edinburgh. I think that, through time, that will turn out to be a really significant area of work for the UK—not only for Whitehall, but for all the devolved Governments as well. Part of that is the relationship that we have here, in Ottawa, among the devolved Governments and the UK Government.
Thank you for that. I have a question for Nick Leake, given all the talk about roundabouts and all the rest of it. The friends of Scotland group is mentioned specifically, and I was a little intrigued—I am making a serious point here. I know that you are quite new in Brussels—I think that you crossed the street less than a year or two years ago.
It was two years ago.
It is early days. I just wonder what your thoughts and plans are. I believe that the influence of diplomatic efforts, particularly in the creation of the friends of Scotland group, is important. However, the friends of Scotland group in the European Parliament has only 23 members out of 720 MEPs. That is not even one per member state of the European Union. Maybe you can tell us what you will do to change that, so that we can have more friends of Scotland in the friends of Scotland group.
Okay. First, the friends of Scotland group is not particularly different in size to other similar groups, so we are not smaller or bigger than others—
We want to be bigger, though—right?
It is worth noting that the European Parliament held elections 18 months ago and that, in every election for the European Parliament, around a third of MEPs change. So, we will lose members of the friends of Scotland group as well.
We would be delighted to have more, but 23 members is quite a manageable group. It means that we are able to genuinely respond to the interests that these people have. Some of them are particularly influential. For example, David McAllister is the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the European Parliament. It is a nice—
You are quite happy with 23 members, then. I thought that I would hear some great plan about how we would increase the membership to at least the number of member states of the European Union.
When we meet MEPs who have an affinity with Scotland or an interest in Scotland, we always encourage them to join the group, but it is not as though we have set a target for a particular number that we are aiming for.
Thank you.
I will ask a final question, as I think that we have exhausted questions from the committee members. The Scottish Government has just produced its new space strategy. Space is seen as a key growth area in Scotland, and the strategy is obviously of interest to my deputy convener, given that it is likely to involve Shetland and Orkney in some of the space ports that might be planned. How will you take that strategy forward and promote it within the offices?
I ask John Devine to respond first, given that you were talking about Nova Scotia a few minutes ago.
Going back to Canada diversifying its economy away from an overreliance on the US, part of the relationship that it is now building or enhancing with the UK is a growth and innovation partnership as well. There is definitely a role for us in promoting the Scottish space sector, particularly around the University of Strathclyde and elsewhere.
It is an area where there is an awful lot of potential to work together with Germany. Indeed, the German Government has just committed €35 billion of funding to space projects over the next 10 years. Therefore, we are already, as you can imagine, leaping into action on that.
Two weeks ago, Aviaspace Bremen, in Bremen—which is one of Germany’s three major space clusters—signed a memorandum of understanding with Space Scotland. I have already made mention of the space mission—when I call it a “space mission” it sounds like we went into orbit. We did not go into orbit, but we did go around three federal states with our Scottish space envoy, Daniel Smith. To be honest, of the three missions that we ran this autumn, I think that that was the most successful, and it was the one where the Germans were most struck by the potential of what Scotland has to offer, both on the small satellites front—upstream and downstream—and, very significantly, on the potential for launch.
Daniel Smith is a busy man—we have had him visit Brussels as well. It was really valuable and really useful.
I think that people are struck by the opportunities that Scotland presents, partly because of the geography that we have, but also because our space sector goes all the way through from research in the universities to building satellites in Glasgow and to the launch sites—there is even a rocket manufacturer. Therefore, we really have every aspect covered.
It is a new area of policy that is developing; therefore, learning and sharing with others is really valuable. It is one of the things that we have lost a little bit from Brexit. When we go to working groups, it is not only the content of the working group that is interesting; it is that you come out and have a beer with the Germans and learn about what they are doing, or you have a glass of wine with the French and learn about what they are doing, or you have a coffee with the Italians and learn about what they are doing. We have lost a bit of that, so it was useful to get the space envoy to come to Brussels—we did not make him drink beer, wine and coffee all at the same time—to meet counterparts and share that expertise and what we are doing. And they were quite impressed by what we are doing.
I think that it will open up real opportunities, which might not come through Brussels—they might come elsewhere—but that is all right too, because Brussels has not just the institutions but 27 member states and a number of what they call third countries, which also have strong representation in Brussels. We think that we can be quite a good gateway to Asia, for example.
There is a lot in there, and there is a lot that we will pursue in the coming years.
That concludes the session this morning.
10:59 Meeting continued in private until 11:07.