Official Report 605KB pdf
Item 2 is to take evidence in the committee’s inquiry into the Scottish Government’s international work. I am delighted to welcome from the Scottish Government Martin Johnson, EU director, Brussels office; Dr Alexandra Stein, head of Berlin office; and John Webster, head of London office. I thank you all for providing a submission prior to today’s session, and I invite Mr Johnson to make a brief opening statement.
Good morning, committee members, and thank you for the opportunity to give evidence and contribute to the inquiry. We very much welcome the chance to speak to the committee. I think that this is the first time that any of us has spoken to a Holyrood committee. We are very happy to do so.
The written note that we provided to the committee earlier in the week sets out some factual information about the Government’s international network, our offices, the kind of work that we do, and our areas of focus. I hope that it was useful. We are very happy to build on it through this session.
I want to emphasise just three things at this point. The clerks have warned me to be brief; I will heed that.
First, those in the Scottish Government’s overseas network of offices and colleagues at home who do international-facing work are a highly committed and talented group of officials who work incredibly hard to promote Scotland and Scottish interests, and they have shown real resilience in the challenges over the past couple of years. We are fortunate to have that team of people representing Scotland across the network.
Secondly, I emphasise that, although the UK’s exit from the EU and the subsequent end of the Brexit transition period clearly create a new context and new challenges for the EU office and our European engagement more generally, the Scottish ministers are absolutely committed to internationalism and to Scotland continuing to work with friends and partners in Europe and beyond. The programme for government, which was published in September, reaffirmed that commitment, and the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—in Glasgow last month gave us a further sense of momentum and purpose, particularly on climate issues, of course.
Finally, I mentioned our desire to support the committee’s inquiry. I emphasise the real value that we see in that inquiry. Others who have given evidence have mentioned the importance of a greater focus on EU and international issues and links to Scotland. The committee’s work, including this inquiry, can help with that. I know that the committee is also considering how it might focus on those issues in the future and what further work it might do on them. Again, we welcome that, and we would be happy to touch on those issues today.
Thank you very much for those introductory remarks.
I will open the questioning; we will move to questions from other members of the committee shortly. I remind members that, if they have a particular order in which they want the witnesses to respond, they should say that when they ask their question.
Your written submission mentions that the international offices are
“grounded in Scotland’s National Performance Framework”.
I would like you to elaborate on that, and particularly on how that ties in with the Scottish Government’s cultural priorities, which are another aspect of the committee’s work.
10:15
In the submission, we drew attention to two outcomes in the NPF in particular:
“We have a globally competitive, entrepreneurial, inclusive and sustainable economy”
and
“We are open, connected and make a positive contribution internationally”.
Obviously, those are quite high-level outcomes, but we translate them into more detail through things such as business planning work, the five objectives for the international network, and the specifics for each office.
We are currently thinking a lot about cultural linkage. Members will be aware that the programme for government contains a commitment on a cultural diplomacy strategy. Colleagues and I are involved in thinking about the content of that. Our range of cultural activities, whether in Brussels or elsewhere, celebrates national festivals and promotes Scottish music, literature and the arts. Those are things that have a real purpose, open conversations, make connections, and promote Scotland in the widest sense, but they also ultimately lead to strong diplomatic outcomes.
As members know, Scotland has a well-recognised international set of brands. That came through again at COP26 last month. I know that there are questions about how we present a modern, dynamic and innovative framing of that, but the inherent strength of Scotland’s recognition abroad is really valuable and important. If we have a Burns supper or a St Andrew’s event, or if we promote the Scots language or the Gaelic language—we do all those things as part of our programme—there is a real diplomatic purpose. They are about building relationships that can deliver in other spaces as well as under the culture lens. I think that the cultural diplomacy strategy will be in that kind of territory. How can we make that as strategic, focused and impactful as possible? We should be very proud of the inherent strength of what we have to offer and its recognition, and we must think about how we can get the most from that. It is really valuable to us.
In respect of Berlin and Germany, I echo what Martin Johnson has just said. I will give a couple of examples of our approach in Germany.
There are two very clear approaches in our cultural diplomacy work in Germany. First, it is part of our soft diplomacy work. We use events such as St Andrew’s nights and concerts to invite political and economic contacts whom we have made over the past while and to reaffirm and deepen relationships. For example, at our latest Burns supper, Scottish Development International had two tables for its invited guests. That has helped very much on the trade and investment side, and it links to a memorandum of understanding with Hamburg.
On culture for its own sake, we have taken the approach of reflecting the Scottish Government’s year-of themes in our indigenous languages concert series, for example. Next year will be Scotland’s year of stories, so we will reflect that. In our first year, we were fortunate to have the European championships between Glasgow and Berlin, and that was very much a focus of our cultural activities. We also used that to promote intercity partnerships and partnerships that last for a longer time.
At our last in-person Burns night, before Covid, we took the theme of Burns and nature to link into COP, which was due to be held in that year. We often try to take an angle or a theme for what we do.
Unfortunately, we have had to postpone our St Andrew’s day event, but we will take it forward next year. We were going to use an invited band and invite the music trade in Germany to the concert. We are working with Showcase Scotland Expo on that. The idea is to work with it to help Scottish bands to make it into the German market and find agents. Therefore, agents were also going to be invited to that.
We use culture in a vast array of ways.
I will make three points about how we engage with and use culture internationally.
It is important to talk about the enabling quality of culture, the importance of up-front promotion of artists and our creative sector, almost viewing that as another part of our trade play, and culture’s ability to start conversations. I will give a few examples from my time in Ireland and the three months in which I have been head of Scotland house in London.
Pre-pandemic, the Scottish Government office in Ireland, under my leadership, developed a project with a leading theatre group in inner-city Dublin that brought together school kids from inner-city Glasgow and school kids from inner-city Dublin to co-create lots of poetry about their problems and issues, and what it felt like to be a young person in place. Through that, conversations and links started at the secondary education level.
Another example is a framework that the office in Dublin is working on with the museum of literature Ireland, which brings together Scotland and Ireland to celebrate our literary heritage, in particular through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s city of literature programme. That will provide a platform for Scottish artists, writers and performers to travel to Dublin to put on works and lectures, to talk about their work, and to collaborate with artists, using the museum of literature Ireland as a platform.
The ability to start conversations must run through everything that we do. To go back to my first point about enabling quality, that opens doors. It tells a story about who we are and what kind of country Scotland is, and it engages a broad diversity of audience. Culture people do not talk just to culture people; business people like culture, too, and it brings different people into a room to start conversations.
Thank you. We move to questions from committee members.
I thank the witnesses for their evidence this morning. It has been really useful.
I would like to follow up on an issue that we have been discussing for the past few weeks in our inquiry. We have heard a lot of evidence in recent weeks about how to enable scrutiny of the keeping pace legislation, alongside how to retain links across the EU. In the evidence that we received in a very good session last week, there was quite a focus on intergovernmental and interparliamentary contacts. A key issue that came out is that, in order to track what is happening, we need to keep an eye on European legislation, and about 1,000 pieces of legislation come out of Europe every year.
I will start with Mr Johnson. Can you reflect on what has changed in how you operate? How do you intend to communicate what is happening in Europe so that our businesses, civic community, parliamentarians and the Government can see what EU legislation is coming down the tracks in a way that would inform the discussion about where we want to keep pace, where we do not want to keep pace and what the implications are of that legislation. Can you assist us with that process of keeping pace around information, transparency and knowledge?
There was quite a lot in that question. I know that you have a separate process in which you receive the draft statement and report back, and that ministers are considering the detail of that and will come back in the new year.
I will start with what has changed. The reality is that we have left the EU and the transition period has now ended, so we are outside the system and we are not automatically plugged in as we were previously. Other witnesses have talked about how that has certain implications. We are not in certain rooms, we are not in processes and structures, and we do not have direct access to the information that we had before. Also, we are not able to influence the development of legislation in the way that a member state would. That is a significant change.
For me and the team here, that creates new challenges around how to build networks, how to get good information and how to plug into the places that we need to plug into. Can we still exert influence? It is very difficult, but we should continue to look for opportunities.
In summary, what has changed is that we are on the outside and we need to do things a bit differently, but we feel that we have ways of continuing to be effective.
Let me say a bit about how my team works with colleagues back in Edinburgh. The Brussels office’s role on alignment is to feed back into the Scottish Government on two main things. The first is helping to ensure that there is a good sense of the strategic big picture. A lot of what my team does is about reporting on latest developments. A heads-of-state Council meeting is happening right now, and we had the fit for 55 follow-up package of announcements earlier this week, which had some interesting and relevant stuff for Scotland. The team here is providing information on that big picture through various channels.
Secondly, we are engaged in specific areas to support colleagues. For example, if they need to know more about the fit for 55 climate and environment package, we can help to set up a conversation or clarify information—we can help those channels run. There may be legislation coming down the track that we might want to have a conversation about. To pick one example, at the moment, the EU is thinking a lot about hate crime legislation, which is an area that the Scottish Parliament has looked at in recent times. We might be able to have a conversation about that and say, “This is our experience. This may be of use.”
That is how the office here feeds into the overall system that is being built up to manage the process of taking forward ministers’ commitments and ambitions on alignment.
You asked a good question about conveying what is happening to a wider group of stakeholders, including the private sector and other actors. We are still in the relatively early stages of working through that. Your committee has a role in that regard by stimulating discussion and exercising a challenge function. Some good work is going on, led by the team in the directorate of external affairs in Edinburgh, to take this work forward, but we need to develop it and think about how we do it.
On the committee’s role, you mentioned the sheer volume of EU legislation—the total can be up in the thousands once all the different instruments are taken into account. We are not in a world in which we track every single item, many of which would not be relevant to Scotland. What is important for the committee is a strategic overview and the strategic questions: what the big-picture direction of travel is, together with questions such as the ones that you have asked about how information is conveyed more widely. Those are valid questions to ask, rather than tracking every single item, which would be difficult to do and not necessarily a good use of time and resource.
I hope that those observations were helpful.
Yes, they were very helpful.
My question was about how you work out what is most significant, given that there might be business interests, for example. We think that some things that are important have not come through an initial tracking—that is one of the things that we are asking the cabinet secretary to look at. However, I was thinking about your role, as people who have contacts that you have developed over the years.
Dr Stein, you are in the Berlin office. How does it feel from your perspective? It was interesting to hear at last week’s meeting the perspective on some of this of a German MEP, David McAllister, who is chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs. To what extent do we track stuff in different offices, and to what extent does information come through the Brussels office? What is your role and the role of officers like you across the EU?
10:30
Things have changed because we are on the outside, and our interlocutors know that we are outside the EU. However, within that process, it has probably changed for us in Germany less than it has for the Brussels office, for example. When the UK or Scotland engages with Germany as an EU member state, everything goes through the Brussels office and the EU. Germany has always been very clear about its loyalties as an EU member state—that will always take priority in Germany over a bilateral relationship.
That said, however, we seek to engage on matters of substance and matters where we have common bilateral interests, whether those are around climate change, renewable energy or higher education. Those conversations have very much continued and we are still engaging. In some cases, we find slightly different ways through, but it is very much about finding the positive way forward. Although Brexit has now been concluded, the door is still very much open to us. We still find it very easy to have all the conversations and to start partnerships. There is certainly a willingness to engage and to find new ways of doing things.
An issue that came up last week was the need for better relationships in the UK offices that are based in different parts of the EU. How can we make better use of existing links, given the very significant changes that have taken place? Perhaps Mr Webster or Mr Johnson is best placed to answer that.
I am happy to go first, although I am sure that Martin Johnson will have a sense of that as well.
I concur with what both my colleagues have said. One significant change post-exit from the EU is that we have to pedal harder to make the links meaningful, but that does not mean that it is impossible. You must find other ways to do it. It is possible and, as Alexandra Stein said, the doors remain open.
In what I do in London, I of course engage every day with overseas embassies through the normal course of the diplomatic circuit. A priority for me is to engage with EU embassies and to maintain those links. One important aspect of an effective diplomatic or international network is that you co-ordinate both your inputs and your outputs, understanding what information you are looking for and is important. It is also important to make sure that your reporting goes to the right people across that network, so that we are all informed, can speak with one voice and are working to an overall strategy in terms of what we are looking for.
As for how we use existing links, I think that you are asking about how we interact with UK partners on the platforms that we share with the UK. I am sure that we will get into this later in the conversation, but my most relevant experience on that comes from some years working on the British embassy platform in Dublin as the head of the Scottish Government office there. Relationships on that platform were excellent. There was a real sense from the UK ambassador and his team of the complementarity of what we both do. There was also a sense that the Scottish Government being on the platform allowed a more complete and holistic picture of and story to be told about what Scotland offers in Ireland and the doors that that opens.
There is work to be done on how we share information about the discussions that we have with Governments in other countries. Some of that is sensitive. The UK Government will be reluctant to share sensitive diplomatic reporting and we must respect that, but personal relationships on the British embassy platforms and the quality of the relationships are the means through which we will improve our sense of that picture.
Thanks. That is very useful.
Mr Johnson, how do you make that sharing of access to information effective in a way that would be useful for stakeholders in Scotland and in other parts of the UK?
I will build first on John Webster’s point about the interaction with UK colleagues. I echo and will build a little on what he said.
In Brussels, we are unusual in that we have our own premises around the corner from the UK mission. We have strong links with UK mission colleagues and we work collaboratively in a number of areas.
I will give you some examples of recent topics. There was a lot of constructive dialogue around the preparation for and delivery of COP26 in Glasgow. On the Covid situation over the past 18 months, there have been quite a number of areas where we have worked together to promote Scottish interests, but in a way that added value. For instance, some of my team have been very involved with the digital Covid certificates and how they interact with QR codes in England and Scotland, which is complicated. I think back, too, to last year, when the Scottish National Investment Bank needed state aid clearance in order to be established. That was another area where there was a lot of cohesive working. That complementarity in such areas is there.
It is important that we are able to act to promote Scottish ministerial interests, so there will be areas where we have our own dialogue and our own connections, and of course that is an important part of what we do. Generally, we are transparent about that and share information in a way that is helpful, but we always have Scottish interests and our ministers’ interests in mind. There is a lot of opportunity to do things collaboratively and in ways that build and get extra value.
On how that relates to stakeholders back in Scotland, can you come back on that question?
I was looking for a final thought on how you communicate with stakeholders in Scotland. You have mentioned that Covid has been a challenge, but on another level it has made everybody digitally connected. Can you see opportunities for that communication to be more effective?
I think so. It is one of the ironies of the pandemic. Running events is a big feature of what we do in Brussels, and we have been putting them online in the past 18 months. At times that allows you to bring people together—interesting groups of senior stakeholders—on different topics more easily than perhaps would otherwise be the case. We need to take some learning from that into the future. Some of the events may continue to be online because they enable us to bring together senior EU figures, people from Scotland and others beyond Europe into really interesting discussions.
We have a number of regular channels of communication from our office here. We do a regular note back to the Scottish Government each week. Our Scotland Europa colleagues in Brussels obviously provide regular briefings and information to their members. We run webcasts and other sessions to update people at particular set-piece moments, on things such as the fit for 55 package, the state of the union speech by the Commission or the Commission’s work programme. We will use a mix of online and written briefings. We have probably ramped those things up a bit over the past 18 months, just because those are the channels that have been available. I think that they are effective, and there is quite a wide audience for some sessions.
I want to ask Dr Stein about interaction with the UK Government diplomatic effort in Germany. The other two witnesses have spoken about that, and I wanted to give you the opportunity to comment.
I am more than happy to do that. There is a clear programme of sharing information. There is a rhythm of information-sharing meetings, whether they are part of the regular embassy calls or involve particular areas, such as public health, the climate or energy, where we think that Scotland has particular interests in the embassy.
We also collaborate on and contribute to certain events, such as the spring reception. The last one that could be held in person was before COP26. The Italian ambassador was invited and we made a presentation to him of the COP tartan. So far, the ambassador and I have jointly hosted our Burns suppers.
We have helped to provide speakers in other areas. For example, earlier this year the embassy organised an information workshop on the Under2 coalition and, given that Scotland had taken over the European co-chairmanship of the coalition, we felt that it was more than appropriate that we should be part of the panel. We were duly represented on that panel as partners, we made main presentations and then we followed up with individual states within Germany, which then expressed interest in joining the coalition.
Another area is the promotion of understanding of devolved issues. For example, people may just not be aware of our engagement in youth exchanges or language learning. Germany or the embassy may be engaging with the Department for Education, but the Scottish Government also has an interest because education policy is devolved. There is a lot of information sharing and seeking to contribute.
Thank you very much.
This question is perhaps for John Webster, first. As everyone knows, there are different models of Scotland’s representation around the world—from the SDI offices to co-location with UK embassies, as you have described. Scotland House is a distinctive model that operates from its own premises and on its own terms. Could you say a bit more about some of the things that are distinctive about Scotland House? In particular, I know that efforts were made pre-pandemic to bring businesses into the building and for it to have an open door.
That is a great question. I have experience of working in a Scottish Government office on shared platforms with a British embassy and, now, in Scotland House London. Broadly, in terms of behaviour and methodology, we are talking about the same thing. The distinction that you have alighted on is perhaps the clearest one. The Scotland House London model is interesting; I would say that it is unique. I have never, in my 35-year career in diplomacy, seen an innovative model like it. In fact, just in the past couple of months, I have had visits from a couple of London-based embassies that are considering the model as one that they might like to follow in their international network, and as they reshape their presence in London. I am due a visit from the Spanish ambassador early in the new year for exactly that purpose.
You talked about inviting businesses on to the platform. Scotland House London is split into two distinct functions on the same platform. It has an intergovernmental partnership, through which the Scottish Government works with contributory partners: Scottish Development International, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and VisitScotland. We hope to add to that partnership model with other agencies in Scotland in the new year.
10:45We have a business hub that offers membership services not just to Scottish businesses. Scottish universities and innovation centres are also members of Scotland House London. They can subscribe through our membership model, and for their subscription they get a top-class serviced office with a networking space, a boardroom facility, an events space and the opportunity to interact with Government and agencies and to get support for what they are doing.
That also gives us the opportunity to run events with members that create a community of practice, which enables us to tell a more holistic story about who we are and what kind of country Scotland is today. It enables us to attract a more diverse set of audiences for which our doing this as the Government alone might not be so attractive.
Scotland House is an interesting model that is in its infancy. Scotland House London had perhaps only a year and a half of full operation before the pandemic struck, during which the model had to be mothballed for very good and important public health reasons. We reopened in September and ran until last week, when we had, again, to pause for public health reasons when cases of the omicron variant started to rise rapidly. I hope that we will reopen our full services again as early in the new year as we can.
The Scotland House model is an exciting model and one that offers huge potential for Scottish business and for the Scottish economy in one of its most important markets. It also has the very interesting potential to create new and interesting collaborations across the range of activity that we seek to pursue under the national performance framework.
Thank you. I have a question for Dr Stein and Mr Johnson. You both talked about cultural diplomacy and soft power and, rightly, you have been careful not to draw too fine or too complete a distinction between art for art’s sake, as it were, and culture with diplomacy in mind. I think that it is right not to draw that distinction too sharply.
Could you say a bit more about the work that is being done to promote Scottish culture overseas? You specifically mentioned literature. I am curious to know what the aims are and whether they are specifically cultural.
I am happy to come in on that. I have given a couple of examples. We want to promote Scottish culture as Scottish culture. For example, whenever we hold a Burns supper or a St Andrew’s night event, we will bring in a Scottish band for the music. In pre-Covid times we would host a ceilidh, for example, which is very much about inviting people in, showcasing Scottish culture and letting people experience and enjoy it. A comment from a journalist after our first St Andrew’s night event was that it was the best event in the diplomatic calendar. We came brand new to Berlin and made an impact very quickly with that event and everything around it.
We also aim, as well as bringing a band in, to bring in the best of Scottish food and drink. There was a comment made earlier about the perception of Scottish food and drink. We aim to bring the best of Scottish whisky, gin, fish and other produce, which we showcase through use of excellent local chefs.
Another thing that we did was Scotland meets Brandenburg. We brought in the best of Scottish produce where we could, but for everything else we made sure that we sourced locally grown produce. In that way, we brought together Scotland with Brandenburg and the immediate area around Berlin. That was a deliberate policy.
On literature, for example, in 2019 we partnered with a literature festival in Rheinland-Pfalz, which is now our key cultural and higher-education partner in Germany. We took six Scottish poets over for a translation workshop for a week, with six German poets. Out of that came a book that has been published and showcased on national radio. We aim for a wide reach. Through that project, people can read poetry in the original Scots, Gaelic, English or German, all within the same volume. That is very much about trying to bring to German audiences something that they might not have come across before, thereby opening that door to Scotland. We are trying to do that throughout Germany. In Hamburg, we partnered with the British Council for poetry events last year, which had the same purpose of showcasing Scottish culture within Germany.
Thank you. My final question is for Mr Johnson. You described how you must operate in the Brussels office in the post-Brexit landscape. Last week, as been mentioned, we spoke to David McAllister about the European Parliament. For very understandable and sound reasons, he was keen to say that the relationship between the European Parliament and our Parliament would have to be informal rather than formal. I take it that you are still operating in both informal and formal spheres?
That is exactly right. You have heard evidence, I think, about the friends of Scotland group of MEPs, which we set up a couple of years ago, since EU exit. It is a very effective mechanism through which we can engage with a wide group of MEPs from all kinds of political backgrounds who have a general interest in Scotland. That allows us to create a dialogue and is a way for ministers to engage and for us to connect to development of the policy agenda, for example, which links back to alignment.
That group is public, as many of the friends of the Scottish Parliament groups are—the UK also has a group. Such groups allow informal discussion and dialogue to happen and allow us to home in on specific policy areas and to get access to friends of Scotland MEP members and other members with whom they can connect us. That is a key focus of the work in Brussels, as it relates to Parliament.
I know that David McAllister touched on wider issues about relationships between the European Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, and the need for formal links with national Parliaments. He also touched on the parliamentary partnership assembly, which is part of the trade and co-operation agreement architecture. The EU has now constituted its side’s membership of that partnership; the UK side is still to be confirmed. There is a question to be asked about the Scottish Parliament’s role in feeding into that structure. It is a significant formal structure that is of interest; it will be a formal mechanism that will be important in terms of TCA governance. I hope that there will be a good and appropriate Scottish voice in that structure on the UK side, if Scotland can build links into it.
Thank you. We are at that time on a Thursday morning when I have to remind everyone we are pushing up against time limits. Please be succinct in questions and answers and answer only if you feel that you have something to add to what has been said. Unfortunately, that is because we have First Minister’s question time on Thursday.
Thank you, convener. I will keep to one question in order to meet the time requirements.
I will start with Martin Johnson, but I put the question to the entire panel. How is success measured in your office? What metrics do you use and do you feel that they are appropriate?
I will say a bit, then colleagues can maybe add some detail. The starting point is that the international network has five outcomes. They are: reputation; businesses trading internationally more effectively; research and innovation capability being promoted and partnerships and funding secured; investment coming into Scotland; and, finally, Scotland’s interests in the EU and beyond being protected and enhanced. Those outcomes are at quite a high level, but they are the starting point, not just for the Brussels office but for the other overseas offices.
The outcomes are converted into business plans in each office. In the past two or three years, the plans have increasingly been developed as joint SDI and Scottish Government projects or as Scotland Europa and Scottish Government projects, in the Brussels context. The plans generate more specific objectives and aims and, at the end of each reporting year, each office produces an evaluation report that is fed back centrally to colleagues, the director for external affairs and the international board that sits above all that.
On building on that specifically, what kinds of things are measurable? Clearly, economic and other forms of diplomacy are, by their nature, quite difficult to measure. Some of the things that they deliver are inherently medium term or longer term. Things like reputation and enhancement of reputation—which relate to what Alexandra Stein said about cultural events—are hard to measure, although we try to measure them. It is an evolving situation in which we are improving as we go through measuring the likes of volume of senior ministerial engagements, the number of events that we promote, participation in events directly and in terms of their audience, and how the social media footprint grows and the nature of it.
On the trading and economic front, are there specific investments or outcomes that we can point to? That kind of hard economic measurement is more in the SDI space, but I think that it is something that we should be alive to, as a network.
I would say that it is an evolving area. We have made some good steps forward in the past two or three years since I have been in post, but how we do it all is a legitimate area for Maurice Golden and colleagues to look at and, potentially, to contribute their thoughts to. It is a very difficult area. Colleagues will say a bit more on the detail; we are working hard on improving and developing; I think that we have made some good strides.
Thank you. That was very helpful. We will move to Germany next. I am keen to hear the thoughts of Dr Stein.
I would echo what Martin Johnson said about the overall approach. The same approach goes for all of us and we do our business planning together. We also do our monitoring and evaluation together, so they come in a joint report. We also work very closely with SDI in-country on all that.
Because some things are difficult or challenging to measure in their own right, we often look for proxies. For example, hydrogen is a big topic for us in Germany at the moment, so we would be looking to count, for example, the number of events that we have spoken at, the number of ministerial speeches, the number of speeches that I have given in German and the number of partners that we have brought in from Scotland to showcase them to the wider audience.
There is also outreach from events. For example, we spoke last year to the 3,500 attendees at the German hydrogen national assembly. We also hosted a mission hydrogen workshop at which the energy minister spoke. There were 10,000 registrations for that assembly and we think that about 8,000 people attended. We try to measure such things and we look at media coverage of interviews that we have given, for example. We also look at social media—at how people are responding—and we examine follow-up after events, because often after a speech people ask for contacts, on which we follow up. That will often lead to business contacts, as well. Our measures are a combination of hard numbers and proxies. There is also the narrative of our trying to follow things through.
Thank you. Now, to London. I feel like I am in the Eurovision song contest. Mr Webster, I am keen to hear your thoughts.
I hope that you are not going to say “Nul points”, Mr Golden.
I will speak from the Dublin perspective. My colleagues have said it all; I have an easy gig here.
I will make a couple of points to reinforce the integrated nature of the business planning model that we now use—certainly, in Ireland and in Scotland House London. We have a plan that includes the objectives of partners of Scotland House—a joint plan between the Scottish Government and SDI. That leads to a shared action plan for how we pursue objectives, and a shared evaluation report at the end of the year.
11:00The second point that I will make is that we also use survey tools. As well as the quantitative element—how many people we bring into the office or meet with, and how many receptions—we would, for example, survey people who come to our events, ask them questions about the impression of Scotland that they left with, the quality of speakers and their overall experience. From that, we gain a sense of the impression that we made on our key target stakeholders and audiences.
We are doing a very similar thing in London. We are just about to launch a survey of members of Scotland House London, which will do two things. Retrospectively, it will ask them for their impressions of the quality of service that they received and the links and outputs that come from their joining with Scotland House. We also poll them on what they are looking for in the slightly changed reality that we are emerging into as we come out of the pandemic, so that we can properly assess need and tweak, or recalibrate, our offer to businesses.
My third point is that, looking back and thinking about this in the context of both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, where I have extensive experience, the business planning process stands up to scrutiny. It is rigorous and it reads across favourably to those who operate embassies in the FCO’s and DFID’s overseas network.
There is always room for improvement. My colleagues have talked about the difficulty of developing quantitative measures for what are, in effect, long-term qualitative matters—for example, influence. However, I think that there are always ways in which we can improve, so I look forward to engaging with colleagues and making sure that we do that year on year. It is important.
Thank you.
This has been a most informative hour of conversation. I am interested in what John Webster was saying about the perception of Scotland and how that is being recorded. Will you expand on that a bit more? I am interested to hear about the Scottish Government’s plans for expanding the network of Scotland offices in Europe—in Copenhagen and Warsaw, for example—and any comments on the wider network of Scotland’s offices around the world.
Those are very interesting questions. I am sure that there could be a separate parliamentary evidence session on the question of international perceptions and branding, and I know that Murray Pittock talked a bit about that in his evidence session with the committee.
In Ireland, we did it by using surveys in a sharply targeted way to ask people about their general impressions. Where we had thematically specific events, we asked what people had learned, and used that evidence to tweak the narrative in our end-of-year evaluation reports. We also carefully and closely looked at the press and media coverage of Scotland in the Irish media and used that as a loose proxy for impressions. It is an evolving science. There is a lot of work out there on international impressions, and Scotland probably has room to grow and improve on that. The network has a role to play in that.
On network expansion—I am sure that my colleagues will say more about this—there are plans in the year to come and in 2023 to open an office in Copenhagen and then one in Warsaw, although I am less sure about the timeline for Warsaw. The office in Copenhagen is a really exciting development, and it is a fantastic job for a diplomat. We have much to collaborate on with the Nordic group of countries. A couple of months ago, I hosted a dinner with a group of Nordic and Baltic ambassadors, and what struck me was not only the warmth of the conversation but the degree to which substance figured in it. For example, Norway was clear on how important to it co-operation on our coastal economies is, as well as the scope to grow that co-operation and collaboration, and, across the piece, the degree to which we can continue to exchange knowledge and technical expertise as we grow our renewables sectors.
It is about developing friendship and collaboration but also hard co-operation for mutual economic benefit. I will leave it at that and let my colleagues say a few words.
Similarly, I had a meeting with some young Scots designers who spoke about co-operation, collaboration and the idea that we are perhaps a southern Nordic state as opposed to a northern European state. I reflect positively on what you have just said—thank you. I think that Martin Johnson is going to come in on the expansion.
I will add a little bit to what John Webster said on expansion. The plan is to open the Copenhagen office next year. The background to that is that there is a sense that Copenhagen is a really good base not just for Denmark but for wider Nordic interests. Scotland has lots of connections and shared challenges with Nordic countries—the trading connections, volume of trade and potential in that area are really significant. We have an existing SDI presence there and, going back to cost efficiency, it is worth building on that. For all those reasons, as per the programme for government, Copenhagen is the next one that is coming.
There is a commitment to open an office in Warsaw before the end of the parliamentary session but, timewise, that is slightly further away. The rationale for that is about the education, trade, cultural and other links that Scotland has with Poland. There is also a regional dimension. It is an opportunity to engage with not just Poland but neighbouring countries. Poland is a significant player in the EU, with a population of almost 40 million people—I think that it is the fifth-largest member state. It is a significant connection to make and there are links to build, so there is logic to it.
On your other question about the wider network, I was reminding myself of the SDI network, which, as you will be aware, is bigger than the Scottish Government’s. It has something like 32 offices, with six in the Americas, 10 in Asia and the Pacific, two in the middle east and a set in Europe, many of which have co-location with the Government offices. There is a global network.
Over the past year or two, there has been a lot of work for us as officials to build connections with the leaders of those offices. We have something called the international leaders forum where we meet up—albeit virtually, recently. We have been building those connections, talking with colleagues in places such as China, in a way that we have not used in years gone by. Some really interesting relationships and opportunities are developing.
There is clearly a strategic question for ministers on the future of the Scottish Government network and what they want its footprint to look like, and it was interesting to look at the different manifestos on that going back to election time. It is an interesting strategic question as we go forward. Interaction with the SDI network is at the heart of that because there is already a footprint there—putting the two things together and making them work effectively creates quite an impactful proposition. I hope that those few thoughts are helpful.
That is very helpful—thank you.
It has been a really interesting session. I was struck by what Martin Johnson said about the fit for 55 energy and climate package, and Dr Stein talked about the work on hydrogen, as well. I would like to unpack that a little bit more because it is obviously a big strategic priority and I imagine that it will dominate the work of the Copenhagen office. What do you see as the main work strands to come out of that? Do you see Scotland as being currently aligned with the EU agenda or are there differences in approach? I would like to start with Martin Johnson on that question.
It is a timely question. At the beginning of the evidence session, I mentioned that the bulk of the fit for 55 package of legislative proposals was published back in the summer and, just a couple of days ago—on Tuesday, I think—the European Commission put out a second package. I will provide some examples of why it is important. In the package this week, there was a lot on hydrogen—definitions of different types of hydrogen and proposals for rules around how networks for the transportation of hydrogen will operate in the EU—and additional proposals on things such as the energy performance of buildings. In the whole package, including the proposals that came out in the summer, there are areas such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, emissions trading and vehicle standards, which are all things that have resonance in and relevance to Scotland. The bulk of those are in devolved areas.
Going back to issues such as hydrogen—I am sure that Alexandra Stein will build on this—understanding what is happening in the regulatory space in the EU is significant for us. A big part of the strategy in the hydrogen action plan that was published last month is about generating enough renewable hydrogen so that Scotland can be an exporter. The EU—particularly the physically closest member states—is a significant neighbouring potential market. Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, spoke specifically about the EU importing renewable hydrogen when she launched the global gateway strategy two weeks ago.
There is an economic driver and an environmental and sustainability driver, and there is the question of alignment. To return to that question, Scotland is very aligned across those areas, which is partly a function of having had the same legislation because, until recently, we were part of an EU member state and bound by EU rules. As we know, the ministerial ambition is to stay aligned. Single-use plastics and the policy and plans on that are a really good example of something that we are doing in Scotland that is very much aligned with EU plans.
Across the piece, it is a very interesting and significant package. Along with digital, it is the centrepiece of the Commission’s work programme not just in terms of policy outcomes, high standards and high protections but on economic issues such as growing the hydrogen sector and potentially exporting. There is lots of stuff in there, but I will pause at that point.
Time is getting on, but I have a further question, which is on the COP presidency. Earlier, Martin Johnson touched on the preparatory work that he was involved in for COP. We still have some time left in the COP presidency before it is handed over next year. I am interested in what that workstream looks like at the moment.
I am looking for someone to self-nominate to come in on that question.
11:15
I will come in on that. It is a really good question. You are quite right: the UK presidency runs until the summer before being handed on ahead of COP27, which will be in Egypt. The main focus is on driving forward the momentum of COP—trying to drive up ambition and to ensure that, when nationally determined contribution plans are updated at COP27, the ambition level is lifted.
There is a role for Scotland in supporting that drive, but what also came through at COP were some distinct areas of Scottish interest and leadership such as the statement on women’s leadership on climate issues, the question of loss and damage and the dialogue with the global south, as well as the promotion of Scotland’s very progressive and extensive framework of legislation and ambitions.
There are two tracks: the support of the thrust of what the presidency is trying to achieve in the run-up to COP27; and, alongside that, the distinct and strongly value-adding platform of the things that I have mentioned, which Scotland has very successfully pushed around COP.
I hope that that is helpful and gives a sense of those two tracks.
I am happy to offer some additional evidence on both questions. Our work on COP is an example of where much of our work and many of our priorities are interrelated. We will take forward that work through our engagement on hydrogen and biodiversity, for example, because those are core themes that will underline all our work, and, by taking it forward, we contribute to the COP programme. Indeed, we are already in the process of planning follow-up engagements around the various COP themes.
That takes me back to the question that was asked about hydrogen in Germany. That has been a key priority for us for about 18 months, and its roots lie in the German presidency. Germany published its hydrogen strategy back in the summer of 2020, which was followed by the EU a month later. Quite clearly, Germany was positioning in the EU and saying that it was going to lead and co-ordinate Europe’s hydrogen agenda. Germany stated, for example, that it wanted to be the global leader in hydrogen technologies; at the same time, it has requirements for massive amounts—it needs to import industrial-scale amounts of green hydrogen.
Linking that back to our hydrogen strategy, which was published last December in the action plan, you will see that we are positioning Scotland as one of Germany’s key import countries, using the fact that Scotland has 25 per cent of Europe’s wind resources and building on the fact that Scotland has 10 to 15 years of learning-by-doing experience in the area of green hydrogen. Where Germany says that it wants to import 90TWh to 110TWh of green hydrogen a year and we might be able to export 94TWh of green hydrogen a year in the most ambitious scenario, we can say, “You are looking to South Africa, Australia and Chile, but Scotland is just over the water—we are a stable provider and we want to be part of the portfolio of import countries”.
We are looking to get on to national platforms. We are engaging with key trade associations across Germany. We are speaking to organisations such as chambers of commerce in Germany. We are engaging with the media. We are building MOUs around the topic of hydrogen between the deep wind cluster in Scotland and the offshore wind cluster in Germany and with key states in Germany. We are looking to take that forward as a key priority. The Hamburg MOU, for example, that was signed just three or four weeks ago is about how we build import-export technologies together. It is partly about importing and exporting and partly about Germany and Scotland working together on their common interest to develop the hydrogen economy more quickly. It could create 300,000 jobs and be worth as much as £25 billion a year in Scotland by 2045, so it is a key opportunity that we must pursue. However, we will only realise that if we have a good export market, so we must bring everything together around that.
Thank you. I would love to have another hour on that topic.
I am sure that you would. We have a question from Donald Cameron—very quickly, please.
I have lots of questions but I will ask only one. As you look at our international office presence around the world, do you think that we are in the right places? I say that having listened to the justification for the new offices in Copenhagen and Warsaw. I do not want to refight old battles—Brexit has happened, we have left the EU and, notwithstanding all that, we seem to be opening more offices in the EU. Is that right? We are not in, for example, Australia, New Zealand, Africa or South America. It is a very general question as to whether you think that we are correctly positioned. I would like to start with John Webster.
Are we correctly positioned? Drawing on my experience of working in the UK embassy network and on trade teams, and having recently worked in Ireland, I have yet to see much compelling evidence that suggests that countries do not trade most effectively and at the highest volume with others in their immediate neighbourhood. From a trade perspective—in or out of the EU—there is still a national interest in having the kind of presence in our near neighbourhood that can support that set of trading relationships.
When it comes to wider international locations and whether we should be in Australia and New Zealand, I am sure that there are compelling reasons for developing relationships—historical reasons, to begin with. I am sure that my ministers would love to do so if we had the capability and resources. However, based on my experience, when it comes to the deployment of limited resources, looking to a near neighbourhood makes a lot of sense from an economic and a trading perspective.
Please give succinct answers, if possible.
I can probably answer only for Germany, because that is where I am. Germany is the largest economy in Europe. It is Scotland’s second-most important trading and inward investment nation. It is our top partner for higher education research collaboration and it is a priority country for visitors and tourism. On those grounds, Germany is definitely the right country to be in.
I will add a couple of thoughts. The answer to your question might be different depending on whether you are looking through a trade and economic development lens or a diplomatic and influencing lens.
Earlier, I mentioned the SDI network, which is extensive and global and goes beyond Europe. It comes back to being joined up and getting synergies. It is a legitimate question for ministers to reflect on, and it is a dynamic question because the situation will evolve over time. There is the global affairs framework, which is being developed for publication next year, and the trade vision that was published earlier this year. Ministers are actively reflecting on these areas and those publications shed light on them.
I echo some of what John Webster has said about economic connections. It is a dynamic situation, which, quite rightly, we will keep coming back to in the future.
I thank our witnesses and my committee members. It is obvious that the session has opened a number of areas in which further discussion might be helpful, one of which—for me—is about understanding the scope and number of memorandums of understanding that are in place and have been mentioned, at country and city level. We might write to you for some further information, and I will ask my committee members to reflect on the questions that we did not quite get to today. As Martin Johnson said, it is the first time that any committee has looked at these issues, and I am sure that it will not be the last. It has been a fantastic evidence session and I thank you all for your attendance.
This is the committee’s final meeting in 2021. I thank our clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and other members of the Parliament’s team who have supported the committee since we came back for this parliamentary session. I wish you all a very safe and happy festive period.
Meeting closed at 11:25.Previous
United Kingdom Internal Market