Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Ireland definitely benefits from a strong, unified and non-partisan approach to its promotion internationally, and it does things that are so much further ahead of where Scotland is within a devolved context. The scale of its international network, for example, is by a significant factor larger than Scotland’s, and it is able to deliver significantly more than we are able to.

We just need to look at the efforts to promote Ireland in and around St Patrick’s day alone. Literally the entire Irish Government is dispatched around the world, including to Edinburgh, to promote Ireland at events. Unfortunately, there has up to now not always been consensus on whether the Scottish Government should be promoting Scotland at all, and again, unfortunately, there have been political actors who would seek to criticise any form of international promotion or engagement.

That has been to Scotland’s detriment, because, notwithstanding the difference of views on Scotland’s constitutional future, when we talk about promoting Scotland internationally, we are talking about exports, inward investment, tourism, education, culture and everything else that fits under the brand Scotland umbrella. Again, that is something that should have cross-party agreement and support. For those who are unaware of it, brand Scotland, which has been operating since 2018, brings together our national agencies in a way that other countries are very jealous of, to promote Scotland internationally.

There are, therefore, some things that we do very well and on which there should be—and, I hope, is—cross-party agreement in promoting. Our international networks have been supported by different parties; Scotland house in Brussels was established under the Conservatives, while other parts of the network were established during the first sessions of the Scottish Parliament and, since 2007, have been built on by the current Administration. Different parties have been involved in developing Scotland’s international network over the years, and I think that one of the lessons from Ireland is that wider and broader support of promotional efforts is a good thing.

I do not want to be too self-critical, though, so I would just point out that a cross-party Scottish Parliament delegation has taken part in tartan day and tartan week since their inception. The Presiding Officer represents the whole Parliament, and in recent years, we have even seen the UK Government begin to show an interest in tartan day and tartan day events. I hope that we are—with a bit of luck—building some consensus around Scotland’s international promotion being a good thing. I think that it was before Mr Brown’s time on the committee, but I would observe that I have been encouraged by colleagues on this committee—in fact, it was the previous deputy convener who suggested this—to enlarge the Scottish Government’s international network to include countries in South America.

I think that there is an ambition in this respect, and I want to do anything that I can to encourage colleagues across the parties to support the international network, international promotion and our work with the diaspora. I am certainly very keen to work with colleagues on a non-partisan basis to make that happen.

We have a colleague, who is joining me virtually, who is on the front line of that in Brussels. We have an office in Brussels that works with European institutions to be aware of European Union regulations and proposals, as far as is possible. We look across the piece of those and we try to work in a way that allows us to maintain our alignment with the European Union, as far as is possible.

You will have to forgive me, because you will appreciate that hundreds and hundreds of different proposals are brought forward and you have not invited me today to speak about the specific issue that will be discussed more next week. However, with regard to the generality of the matter, the Scottish Government, its office in Brussels and our agencies are working with a view to remain as closely aligned as we can and to avoid significant divergence between Scotland and the European Union. That is the aim of the Scottish Government. There will be examples where that is not the case but, with regard to the generality—the direction of travel—that is the policy of the Government, and we are doing as much as we can.

I think that Mr Ruskell and other committee members will be aware that we have been working closely with the committee clerk to ensure that members are informed about how that is done and that there is a reporting mechanism to the Parliament on alignment. That is a work in progress, but we want to ensure that the committee and parliamentarians are informed, as much as is possible, about those alignment efforts.

Scottish Government agencies will always do whatever they can to support the Scottish export sector. The responsibility for the UK border regime lies with the UK Government. The Government that has responsibility for policing border arrangements—literally—is the UK Government. This is a very clear example of where we will try what we can to ameliorate problems. Scottish Enterprise, Scottish Development International, the Scottish Government agencies, and the Scottish Government itself, which regularly meets representative organisations and exporting companies, will do everything that we can to ensure that unnecessary red tape or barriers to trade are removed.

A good example of that—one of the biggest prizes, short of rejoining the single market and the European Union—would be to have a comprehensive SPS agreement. I know that this area is like acronym soup—it involves a lot of technical language. In effect, that would mean having what is known in common jargon as a veterinary agreement. My understanding is that such an agreement would reduce the necessity for about 90 per cent of cross-border checks, were there to be such a thing. I think that I am right in believing that the current and outgoing UK Government does not agree that there should be an SPS agreement. My hope, which has been communicated publicly, is that, were there to be a new and different UK Government, it should aim for an SPS agreement—a veterinary agreement—which would make export and import much easier.

So, in short order, the responsibility for a hard Brexit, for borders and for Brexit red tape is the UK Government’s. It owns it. It has delivered it. It said that it would be an improvement. It is not. We will do everything that we can to reduce the damage that Brexit has caused, but it will only ever be at the margins. The only way that we can obviate that damage is to rejoin the single market and the European Union; everything else will only ever make a marginal difference. We are outside the European Union now, which means that those barriers are there. Nothing will change that, short of rejoining the single market and/or the European Union. I am in favour of doing both.

Ultimately, the all-Government responsibility lies with the First Minister. As I think everybody knows, the sustainable development goals emerged from the United Nations, so they are an external affairs area of responsibility. However, Mr Ruskell has made the point that the matter cannot sit within a silo, and it must be seen across Government.

Mr Ruskell’s question is well timed as it allows me to underline the next steps in reflecting on how we capture all that in our reporting to ensure that any concerns that he has about such matters being seen only in silo terms are much more generally understood. For very obvious reasons, they cannot be understood in only one part of Government.

That is a really good example. What Mr Brown points to is correct. It is my experience, when meeting with European decision makers, whether in national capitals or in European institutions, that there is a very strong predisposition towards Scotland as a pro-European nation and a wish to be as helpful to Scotland as they can be.

A very good, concrete example of where we have an opportunity to make the most of that is the energy question that I alluded to in response to Mr Ruskell. I do not think that it is widely reported here that the German economy is going through one of its most significant transitions since the industrial revolution. Germany is moving away from a reliance on hydrocarbons—in particular, Russian gas—and toward fuelling its engineering-based economy with hydrogen. It is doing that right now. However, Germany is unable to provide its indigenous industry with the amount of renewable energy, in the form of electricity or hydrogen, that it requires, so it will need to import that. Scotland and our northern European neighbours can be a big part of the answer.

When I speak to German decision makers, as I did recently in Berlin, they tell me that they are really keen to be able to import—to buy, so it would be a benefit to the sector in Scotland—hydrogen and hydrogen-related products as soon as possible. For that to happen, we will require interconnection between Scotland and Germany, and we will require the UK Government to reach regulatory agreement with the European Union relating to that.

To Mr Brown’s question, then, I would say yes, there is massive goodwill and massive interest, but our relationship is determined not just by our direct contacts. Indeed, that is one of the reasons for our having a strong external affairs approach—we are trying to maximise the opportunities that we have through the goodwill that exists for Scotland—but we are still relying on a UK Government with reserved powers in relation to these energy questions to land that success for the energy transition in Scotland.

We will do everything that we can to prepare the way. We will say to UK Government ministers, “This is a huge opportunity. Please, can you act?”, and I have impressed that on the outgoing Government and will be impressing it on any potential incoming Government. After all, the Germans are acting, regardless of what we do in Scotland and the UK. Either we can be at the forefront of this energy transition on the European continent or we can miss the bus, and it will be decision makers in London who will ultimately determine whether that is the case.

I wish that that were not so; I wish that we could just get on with this ourselves; I wish that we were in the EU; I wish that we were able to agree the regulations ourselves; and I wish that we were able to make progress on the subsea interconnector, which involves powers that are currently reserved. However, we cannot. We will do what we can, but ultimately it will be UK ministers who will determine the speed and the success of this happening. If it fails, they will bear the responsibility for that.