Chamber and committees

I will stay with Chiquita Elvin. Walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure is—for the first time, I think—included as a national development in NPF4. Is the framework detailed enough? What about STPR2? Is it clear what the Government wants to develop? I think that most people will look at that part of the framework and think that it is talking about the national cycling network. However, we have the concept of active freeways, and different levels of aspiration could be applied to that. Is it clear to what extent development in that is required?

So there is no real desire to look formally at the concordat or memorandum of understanding, and you are saying that we are very much led by practice on the ground, which appears to be working. Is that a fair summary? Is there any move to revisit formally those responsibilities and relationships?

Can you give me some practical examples of how the British Council works with the existing hub network, and also what your thoughts are on its expansion? A couple of weeks ago, the cabinet secretary indicated to us that the Copenhagen hub is already being developed—I believe that its director is being appointed at the moment. What do you see the opportunities being with that hub and with a future hub in Warsaw?

We certainly will.

When will the Scottish Government’s international framework be reviewed and updated?

I am talking about the UK international relations concordat, which, I presume, governs how the UK Government and the different UK nations work together—imagine that—on international relations.

There is a key role for small initiatives to be established, which have the potential to grow into bigger initiatives that could attract more funding. I am interested to know—maybe you could write to the committee about this—how you are going to continue to support the growth of grass-roots initiatives, which seem to attract such a huge amount of voluntary support and engagement across Scotland and in Malawi and have the potential to grow into bigger programmes over time. I will stop there.

Your submission focuses on soft power, which has been described slightly differently by some commentators—Pat Kane, for example, talks about the notion of “fizzy power”. It seems to be quite a fluid concept. Obviously, there are tangible benefits in that area, but how do we pin those down? Should Government set out some clear metrics and objectives in relation to how we measure and account for soft power? If we are talking about building relationships and trust, should it be more of a wellbeing indicator, which is valuable but is not the same thing as, for example, a country’s gross domestic product? How do we measure soft power and incorporate it into Government objectives?

I have a couple of quick questions for the cabinet secretary and his officials. The first is about the international relations concordat, which was drawn up in, I think, 2013, when we were in a very different world. Have there been discussions about revising that?

Practically, what will the British Council be doing in relation to the Copenhagen hub? Where do you see the opportunities lying? Do they involve the creative sector and the screen sector, for example?

That is good to hear. We took evidence a couple of weeks ago from the Scotland Malawi Partnership, and there was considerable concern about the pulling of the Malawi small grants scheme. There are concerns that the scheme was evaluated against objectives that were incorrectly written and that the full benefit of the scheme as it operated was not properly evaluated or reviewed. I recognise that that is quite a granular issue to hit you with this morning, but are you aware of those concerns? What commitment might you be able to give to ensure that they are properly addressed?