Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I might get myself into all kinds of trouble with the convener, because I could happily talk about those issues for a long time.

I have a locus on the point about the diaspora because I also have responsibility in relation to the population challenge that we are facing. I do not know how widely people are aware that we are heading back into the territory of relative population decline, which is very concerning for us. That is the background to the perennial challenge—or opportunity—that we have.

We are one of the nations in the world that have a significant diaspora. The question is how we can best discover, maintain and develop our relationship with that diaspora. In the past, that has largely been thought of in terms of people who have left Scotland and gone to the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so on. However, there are other forms of diaspora. For example, tens of thousands of people have studied in Scotland and then gone back to the countries from which they originally came. They are a form of Scottish diaspora as well—they are aspirational Scots. We need to find imaginative ways of striking a continuing relationship with those people and making the most out of that.

We have lessons to learn from other countries, some of which you mentioned. I would add Ireland to the list. The Irish have a great experience of fostering relationships with their diaspora. There is more to come on that issue, and I will be happy to return to the committee when I can say more. It is definitely something that we are thinking about—we are working out how we can move all of that forward.

On the softer areas such as culture, it is relatively simple for me to take that forward as I have responsibility for external affairs and culture, so I can do both at the same time. In doing so, we always need to keep an eye on other areas of Scottish Government policy that also have such interactions. For example, education was mentioned. Shirley-Anne Somerville is extremely focused on that, and we talk about that area.

An area that we have not gone into today is justice. Through Brexit, we are in the unfortunate position of having lost our place in a great many judicial co-operation functions. That is the bad news. The good news—if we can call it that—is that the Scottish Government is working well across directorates and its areas of expertise in the area. Recently, we had a deep dive, as it is called in the jargon, that was hosted by colleagues at Scotland House Brussels. That is another example of the value that that network and the colleagues who work in that field in Brussels can bring. We are able to brief my Cabinet colleague Keith Brown, justice officials, my directorate and others on those issues.

That is a concrete illustration of how we are moving beyond Brexit, if we can call it that, and understanding the downsides. As I pointed out in my opening statement, there are very few upsides to Brexit. What will we do about that? We can find workarounds for some things, but the honest truth is that there are many things for which we cannot find workarounds. We need to be honest with people that Brexit has been extremely damaging not only to trade, but to education, culture, justice and other areas.

We will have an opportunity during the current session of Parliament to put that right and to chart our course for rejoining the European Union as an independent member state. That will go a long way towards repairing the damage that Brexit has wrought for us.

It is fantastic that there appears to be general agreement on, and general enthusiasm for, the excellent job that Scotland’s international offices do. They attract investment, broaden our horizons, and create domestic opportunities and benefits for people in Scotland, and they do so at a very marginal cost in the context of the Scottish Government’s budget. Between 0.01 and 0.02 per cent of the Scottish Government’s overall portfolio spending plans goes towards our existing eight international offices.

The future funding that is allocated in the Scottish budget includes the funds for the opening of our office in Copenhagen, which will take place this year. That offers us huge opportunities for developing our links with the entire Nordic and Baltic region. Those countries are our near northern European neighbours.

Within the current session of Parliament, we are committed to opening an office in Warsaw, which will serve central Europe. That is a region that matters enormously to us, not just from the point of view of trade and educational and cultural exchange, but because so many people who were originally from that part of the world live in Scotland. Therefore, the opening of that office makes perfect sense.

There is an interesting discussion to be had about where the network should develop at the next stage. Given that there seems to be so much encouragement for the network to be as successful as it can be, I can definitely identify parts of the world where we are not currently represented by a Scottish Government office. There is, of course, Scottish representation through Scottish Development International, whose reach extends right around the world. The question is where might we look next. Should we consider having offices in capitals in which there are strong bilateral and cultural connections with Scotland? In some cities, there is a very strong multilateral diplomatic and third sector presence. All those factors will go into the thinking about where we might expand after Copenhagen and Warsaw.

We are talking about a fast-evolving situation, and we are moving with the situation as quickly as it moves. We do not have an end state at the moment. We were supposed to have international agreements and the basis of a new relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, but we are not there yet. The United Kingdom Government is still threatening to invoke article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol, with all the problems that that would bring for us all in a worsening relationship with the European Union.

I will highlight two levels on which we interact with European colleagues. First, we talk to people about Brexit and its on-going and unresolved issues. Secondly, we interact on areas in which we have emerged beyond the immediate wreckage of the Brexit process. For example, on education, we know what has been transpiring with the Erasmus scheme and that, measured against it, its UK replacement is inadequate. Nevertheless, we still want to ensure that we have the best possible relations with other European countries in respect of education. I spoke with the German federal minister who has responsibility for that, because we want to ensure that we have the best possible relations. A few weeks ago, I spoke with the French culture minister about how we can move beyond the problems that Brexit has caused for Scottish and French artists and how it has made it much more difficult for them to tour and perform.

We are working on two levels. We are considering how we deal with the immediate issues and how we can move beyond them. Some things are moving very quickly, and we have to deal with the fast-moving circumstances. We are also doing exactly what you mentioned: we are working out where the different areas are in which we can move beyond the immediate Brexit transition issues to try to firm things up and, in some respects, ameliorate the damage that Brexit has caused.

Speaking as a parliamentarian as much as a Government minister, I have to say that I hope not. I have repeatedly told the committee that I am happy to come back as often as you want me to—with five visits, I think that I qualify for a frequent flyer pass—and I would also hope that UK Government ministers would be happy to give evidence, as I have done to House of Lords committees in great detail and at great length.

It is essential that we have scrutiny and that we can shine a light on things, because that ensures that things work well. Scrutiny keeps people like me on my toes and lets civil servants know that certain questions are likely to be asked of them. Those are all good things, and we should not be scared of them. We might not always have the answers, but if we do not, that probably means that we should get them.

The Scottish Parliament’s strong committee system was set up specifically to make Governments in Scotland work in a better and different way. I am committed to making the system work, and I am moving forward in that collegial fashion. The suggestions that you make and the questions that you ask along the way really have an impact on me and those who advise me, and that is exactly what should happen.

This is one of the most problematic areas of the whole issue. UK ministers are now in a position to decide how public money—money that you, I and our constituents have paid in taxation—should be spent in Scotland. UK ministers have not been elected for that purpose, but they are now going to make decisions on the basis of their priorities, which they were not elected to do in Scotland. At the heart of it, there is democratic deficit and a democratic problem with all of that. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, it cuts across a range of devolved subjects including culture, sport, education, economic development and infrastructure. It bypasses you and your colleagues, and that is profoundly wrong.

UK ministers have not wasted any time in using their new powers in areas where you should be in charge, not them, and the spending is unco-ordinated. It is not co-ordinated properly with the Scottish Government, and it is not subject to your appropriate scrutiny. For example, more than £152 million of funding from the community renewal fund plus the initial rounds of the levelling-up and community ownership funds has now been awarded to projects in Scotland. It almost goes without saying that funding for worthwhile projects is a welcome thing. Who would gainsay that? However, that is not at issue. The issue is how we manage resources and priorities and what the democratic mechanisms are for doing so.

I will give you two concrete examples. First, there is the multiply programme, which involves a £560 million numeracy programme—it is not small. The multiply fund will be top-sliced from the UK shared prosperity fund and delivered by the UK Department for Work and Pensions across the whole of the UK, despite devolution being wholly involved. No engagement took place with the Scottish Government prior to the announcement, and it means that there is likely to be duplication—and waste—with the Scottish Government’s adult learning strategy, which is to be published in the spring.

My second example relates to the shared prosperity fund. The UK Government has shared some thinking about the role of the Scottish Government in the governance and operations of the shared prosperity fund that would make it a subordinate partner. The Governments would not be equals and there would not be co-decision. I say again that this is a devolved area and it is the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government that should be responsible.

Nevertheless, the UK Government is proceeding. Three options have been proposed in Whitehall, none of which has yet been cleared with Government ministers, and each of them has an ever-decreasing role for the Scottish Government. All the options state that UK Government ministers will have the final say, and a ministerial board has been described with the role of ministers from devolved Governments being to act in an advisory capacity only.

The Scottish Government has seen the initial paper on the indicative priorities of the UK shared prosperity fund and it raises significant questions about the strategic nature of potential projects. It only highlights our concerns regarding distant and unelected decision making for those issues. That is not just the view of the Scottish Government or the majority of members of the Scottish Parliament. Recently, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, which is the umbrella organisation for the country’s voluntary organisations, highlighted its members’ view that funding priorities should be set at a devolved level in order to tackle inequalities, enhance human rights and promote wellbeing

“by linking outcomes with Scotland’s National Performance Framework and other relevant policy frameworks”.

The SCVO has raised concerns about the shared prosperity fund being managed centrally by the UK Government, which echo concerns that the Scottish Government and members of the Scottish Parliament have had since the beginning of the process. Things are beginning to happen, and what we are seeing is indeed what was foretold.