 Good morning, and a warm welcome to the 18th meeting of the Constitution, Europe Excellency Affairs and Culture Committee in 2023. Our first agenda item is a decision on taking business and private, and members are content to take agenda item 4 in private. Our next agenda item is an inquiry into the national outcomes. It's to begin to take evidence in committee's inquiry on the Scottish Government's national outcomes and indicators relating to international policy. We're delighted to be joined this morning by Professor Stephen Gethens, Professor of Practice in International Relations with the University of St Andrews, Professor Juliet Carbo, Professor of Foreign Policy, University of Edinburgh and Professor Peter Jackson, Chair in Global Security, University of Glasgow. I thank you all for your written submissions to the committee, which were very helpful. On that note, we're going to move straight to questions from committee. If I could open, Professor Carbo, I'll perhaps start with your submission that suggests an emphasis on strategic narratives, statecraft and reputation. I just wondered if you could elaborate a little bit on where Scotland is now and how the Scottish Government, where that might take us in the near future. Thank you, and thanks for inviting us here. We're also here representing in Scottish Council on Global Affairs, a new institute across Scotland. My point on strategic narratives was to try to supplement a conversation about soft power. Lots of different Governments and sub-state Governments are interested in soft power, which is just an attraction to a state's culture that presumably helps Governments influence others and cooperate with others. That concept is a little bit outdated and a little bit vague. It's very difficult to see how soft power translates into influence in international relations. It's also difficult for Governments to control soft power capabilities. Counting up capabilities and attraction and branding is fine, but Governments only have so much control of that. It's often a long-term evolutionary perspective to get to having big soft power. We can find lots of examples where soft power translates into influence, but we can find lots of examples where it doesn't. Both in academic research and also in practice by Governments, they have tried to supplement notions of soft power with notions of strategic narratives or communication power. Those things are about telling the world and telling your constituents, the public, who are we, what role do we want to play in the world, how do we want to play it, why, where do we fit in with others, and the advantage of those, they're still difficult to measure how much influence those give you, but the advantage of those is that they can be more targeted, that Governments are in control of those, they're not in control of how they're received, but they're in control of how they're formed and how they're communicated, and they can be a bit different across different issue areas. I think that the most similar one I see in Scottish external relations is this, a bit of a narrative on the good global citizen, that idea, that that's who Scotland is, how it relates in the world. I think that could be developed a bit more. It's an identity, it's who we are, but it's less about... I think that the communication strategy around that has been very good, but I think that it also could draw from some of the work and practice on strategic narratives to be a little bit more detailed. What does that mean? How are we joining up objectives with that kind of identity? Is that helpful? Yes, absolutely. I wonder if Professor Gettings and Jackson want to comment. If one of you could say a little bit about the Scottish Council on Global Affairs and how that's fitting in with the work of the Scottish Government, and maybe come to Professor Gettings first. I'll say very quickly something about the Scottish Council on Global Affairs, if Peter doesn't mind, who's our executive director. The Scottish Council on Global Affairs is a Scottish international affairs think tank, one with the support of the Scottish and British Governments and the backing of every political party in this Parliament. It's being based at the moment at the University of Glasgow, but the other sporting partners are the universities of St Andrews and Edinburgh as well. We're all here from each of the respective universities, and so far some of our work has been engaged in looking at our security and the wider north, which has become exceptionally relevant recently, not least with the extension of Russia's war in Ukraine, but also looking at other issues, such as feminist foreign policy, for example, cyber security, Scottish attitudes to foreign policy as well. The idea behind it, and I'm going to ask my colleagues if they think I've missed anything out if you don't mind, convener, is to give that Scottish perspective on international affairs, because, obviously, as this committee knows better than any other in this Parliament, our external affairs has a significant impact on our domestic policy and the day-to-day lives of citizens. So it's just to provide that perspective embedded in our three universities at the moment, but also drawing on expertise, and I think that we're going to be able to do that. Our three universities at the moment, but also drawing on expertise from elsewhere in Scottish, academic, but also broader civic life as well. I hope that I've got the picture right. Thank you, Professor Jackson. Do you want to add anything? Only to say that our two core missions are first to marshal the expertise that exists within Scotland, both in universities and in the third sector in civil society, to place it at the disposal of policy stakeholders in Edinburgh, for example, in London and beyond, and that's a very important mission. A second one is really to lift the debates and levels of understanding about global affairs broadly defined within Scotland, and that is very important to us as well, and we've commissioned already a host of different research projects on everything from Scottish attitudes towards international affairs to sub-state involvement in international development, and these are all very important to us. Although those are our missions, we're not necessarily a tool to be used by the Scottish Government for its practice. We're here to help under that first rubric, however we can. I wonder if I could ask a tiny supplementary just by moving on. The Cabinet Secretary recently made a statement about utilising global citizens in the diaspora, something that we see that Ireland has done particularly well. Do you think that the Scottish population that's living here engages in that process and that there's more that can be done to enthuse the citizens of Scotland? Without question, I think that it's a very important element in the Scottish Government's suite of tools for its engagement in international affairs. It's tricky to measure and it's very important to engage with the right elements in the right places to make it effective, and that will inevitably be, I think, as the Irish Government has found this as well, to a certain extent a process of trial and error, and it should be understood as an investment, as well as an investment in reputation, but it's also an investment in the three areas where Scotland's identified as being key export areas, education, enterprise and digital, and especially with education and enterprise. Thank you. I'm going to take Dr Collins. It was just on the point that was made there about being a good global citizen, and Professor Jackson made the point that none of that is a tool of the policy of the Scottish Government necessarily, but we have got a reputation, a good reputation, for bringing people from other parts of the world, whether it's to academic institutions or to events like Beyond Borders or to events sponsored in some cases by the Scottish Government. I just wonder what more can we do to build on that reputation of bringing people from parts of the world where there are problems and attempting to be a force for reconciliation and a force for good. So I don't know where to start. I see Professor Jackson nodding his head and then Professor Gethans, but any order you want to go in. Well, I'm also an academic, and one example of something very successful was, and these programmes exist in all three of the partner institutions and in other institutions in Scotland, was something called an Erasmus Mundus project that we started at the University of Glasgow in 2016. In fact, we received the note that we received the funding that was 5 million euros to lead in partnership with University College Dublin and Charles University in Prague in Czechoslovakia. The first year, we had 40 students from 28 different countries. There are now 142 students on that programme, and they are all coming to Scotland as part of this three-way partnership that other partners have been involved with as well. I'm not able to say this because I'm at a university, but I think that they're very, very good for Scotland. They're the kinds of things that will only enhance a reputation if these students come and have a good experience, and I'm desperately worried that, for example, our programme is now under some pressure because that funding, we're no longer allowed to lead it. Scotland, Glasgow, is no longer the hub of this particular programme, and I'm really worried that, unless something is done to shore up what's missing from these kinds of programmes via the European Union, our reputation will suffer and our global reach will suffer. I'll go first and then hand it off to my colleague. I think another example comes from what lots of sub-states do in other ways to play that role of good citizen or engage with the international community, and that's to bring people in to understand different policies, domestic policies, social policies that sub-states have enacted. Sub-states can have more control over assessing things like period equality policies or voting age at 16 policies because it's a smaller area and so that they can do that. Rather than preaching to the rest of the world that this is a way to do it, it is a way to show a good citizen role and to bring people in to say, how did this work? What did we learn? What was the process of forming these kinds of policies? That nicely connects domestic and international as well, which is an arbitrary division anyway in today's world. Just on the point that you and the convener phrased, Scotland is a good global citizen and my colleagues have touched on it. That's over a wide range of areas and I'm sure we'll touch on a number of them, but on your question in terms of areas affected by conflict, I think it's been really interesting and you mentioned there's some really, I'm somebody in a past life that used to work in areas affected by conflict and it was interesting that Scotland had a distinctive brand, people were interested, there was an interest in the devolution journey as well. That goes for elsewhere, we're not unique in that and you see the interest that there is in places like Northern Ireland, but also elsewhere in Europe and the rest of the world. There's a really interesting body of work being undertaken by a number of NGOs based in Scotland, so you're referenced beyond Borders Scotland in some of the work that Mark Muller Stewart's done. Some of that work linking in with women peace builders around the world which is really ground-breaking work and I know an area of work that all the parties and Parliament have engaged in in one way or another since that's been undertaken and that's gained some recognition in areas like the United Nations as well. You've also got others like caucuses links, it's now over 20 years I think since the first time that the speakers of the parliaments of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan met and that was in Murray, the meeting at a whisky distillery, which went down well. The area of peace building is one that's a big industry around the world and there is no one-size-fits-all and you're never going to solve one conflict, but I think that by having a distinctive role it's something that we can make progress on and we do have a little bit of work being undertaken by a colleague Dr Shresti Rana, who's an expert on the Nepali peace process for example, but that's still work that's on-going, but we'd be happy to share that with the committee in due course looking at how smaller states, sub-state actors had an impact on conflicts as well. Again, no one-size-fits-all but there's some fascinating work being done around the world including in Scotland in what is a very tricky but worthwhile area of work for a country that considers itself a good global system. Thank you, Mr Cameron. Thank you, convener, and welcome to the panel. Delighted to see you all and can I add my words of support to the work of the Scottish Council on Global Affairs, which I'm glad to see goes from strength to strength. On the subject of good global citizen, it's quite a subjective idea, isn't it? We can all think of some basic norms that a good global citizen should adhere to, but I wonder how we define that. There will be some instances where there may be dispute about what is good conduct globally. I wonder what your reflections are on that. Can I start with Professor Carbo? You raised it first. I'm happy to. You're right. It is subjective, and it's a vague term. I think one way to think of it is what it's not. What's a bad global citizen? You could think of a bad global citizen as somebody that tries to be very isolated. An isolationist kind of view, that they're not interested in the rest of the world, they're not out there, they're not networking, they're not seeing that their lives, their interests are interconnected with others. So not doing that, or not doing other kind of bad things, which would be breaking international laws, or not respecting international organisations, or not listening to others, and not co-operating, not engaging in multilateral forums. It is a very broad brand or image, but I think what's more interesting is how different states, different sub-states have different paths to write that, and that's okay, right, that you can be a good global citizen by playing a strong role in conflict resolution, or you can play a good global citizen in terms of maximising your international overseas development assistance, or something like that. There's all kinds of paths to it. There's not one kind of standard that you have to meet. Just avoid the bad. Just on the issue of good global citizen, and sorry, I should reference just very briefly, if the deputy convener doesn't mind, obviously there's some very good work in terms of conflict. I should reference that Jack McConnell, the former First Minister, has been doing in the Philippines as well with his experience. Sorry, just briefly, but on that question, Professor Carbone was right, it's very difficult to measure, and I know that part of this committee's job is to scrutinise the work of the Scottish Government in this particular area. It's very difficult to do, but on the question of good global citizen, I sometimes think that there's the two-way process. So let's take the enormous issue of climate change. In order to be a good global citizen, most states around the world would see themselves as actors in terms of climate change, not just because of the impact that has on their citizens at home, but also because of the impact that our actions have on the rest of the world. That becomes quite important on how we sell ourselves internationally, but it also becomes quite important on how we sell ourselves domestically. In terms of climate change, I suppose that this Parliament and the UK Parliament and local authorities will be asking their citizens to make sacrifices, to change culture, to change the way that we live our lives. I think that communicating that idea of good global citizenship is important for an international audience, but it's probably more important in terms of a domestic audience and that area of climate change is somewhere where it would strike me as being the most immediate and pressing example. That was the example that I was going to use myself. Human rights is another one, which is also problematic in some ways because human rights aren't entirely objective. There's the UN Charter in the UN, and there are various suite of UN programmes that can be adhered to. It can also create problems at times with a nation's international posture, particularly when countries such as China are pressed on their human rights record. I think that going back to what my colleague Professor Carbo said about narratives, I suppose that there is always a need to think about where Scotland can particularly reinforce UK policy and where, given Scotland's status as a devolved nation, where it can set out a slightly more distinct position, and this is a tricky narrative that the Scottish Government needs to navigate constantly, but human rights is certainly one of those areas where being seen to support the concept of human rights and specific areas where human rights violations are quite obvious and glaring. The situation in Ukraine is a good example. It will be part of that wider strategic narrative that will reinforce and amplify UK policy while allowing the Scottish Government to make its own contribution. I hope that that is not too vague, but that is certainly what I think. You are very skillfully put if I may. Can I just move on to the question? Professor Catherine has mentioned that it is measuring international work, if I could put it like that. It is something that this committee has grappled with a lot. What are the metrics? How do we measure it? I think that as has been said, this is Scottish Government work, and money has been spent on it. We are entitled to try and measure the efficacy of, say, the international office network. I would be interested to know or discover how you thought we did that best, particularly if we have mentioned the diaspora. Professor Catherine, I know that is an air of interest to you, but how do we properly measure it? You are absolutely right. I will try to answer the question, but it is difficult. It is not just something that is exclusive to Scotland. As Professor Cargo pointed out, it is something that countries around the world who invest in their international profile will want to see some returning committees like this around the world who will want to scrutinise whether or not that is money that is well spent. I think that there are a number of areas. I think that the diaspora is a good example when the convener raised it earlier on. It was good to see that next step, just like in Scotland's journey of engaging with the diaspora. That is always going to be tricky. The Scottish Government has estimated a diaspora of about £40 million, and given the limited resource that the Government has, it is always going to be reasonably light touch. The Irish Government has always been quite clear to say that their approach, even with that big embassy network, will always be quite light touch, given the size of their own diaspora. I think that the measurements that are used by looking at things like the Anholt Ipsos Nations brand gives you some idea. I think that it is something to measure it. I do not think that you rely on that exclusively because there are lots of other circumstances to be taken into account. Fundamentally, what are you looking at? Is it delivering jobs and investment for your constituents, for people at home? Is it delivering in something that we would all have a particular interest given that we are all employed at universities? Is it delivering students who can come here to live, learn and contribute to society here? What happens when they leave? I think that areas such as trade and investment are your policy priorities. Again, with reference back to climate change, what rights are you able to influence? What goes on beyond your borders? Are you meeting some of those objectives? The final thing that I will say before I hand over to colleagues is that it is just as important in those areas of priority. What are the areas of trade and investment that Professor Jackson highlighted in some of Scotland's areas? Areas such as climate change and working with areas that are affected by conflict, which is something that the First Minister has flagged. The trickier part of that is the flipside. What do you not do so much of? If you have your priorities, you measure those, but you need to make some pretty hard decisions that you cannot do everything. That is something that the UK Government has to grapple with. Most Governments will have to grapple with. What do you not do and what impact is that having at home as well? I know that it is not terribly helpful, but some of those measurements will give you an idea of whether or not your investment in international affairs is money well spent by the taxpayer. Professor Jackson. I was just to add that the Scottish Council on Global Affairs might find a way to contribute to this enterprise of both supporting policy but also trying to find measurements in that we could, for example, commission a report mapping out international networks of engagement in the three key sectors that we are talking about, business and industry, the third sector, everything from churches and religious organisations to think tanks like ourselves and education. That would, I think, provide a certain picture which would allow some measurement before and after sort of thing, where the report was made and then we could commission another one, but it would also, I think, provide a bit of a guide to support these efforts. The business and industry would be a very difficult one. That would be a big, big job, but the other two are very, very feasible to do. That's something that we might consider before our management team to see whether we might put out a specific call for something like that. Thank you. Professor Calvin. I agree with my colleagues here that measurement is a very difficult thing to do in international relations and international outcomes. The international outcomes are particularly difficult to measure because what happens in the international is not just under your control. It depends on how others receive it and whether others co-operate with you or whether others support you. So it's even more tricky than some other areas of national outcomes to measure. You do have the obligation to assess that, but assessment is different than measurement. So some kind of criteria for understanding what the Scottish Government is doing in an external relations, how that supports the goals, how it supports the priorities, can be done in a more assessment criteria rather than looking for hard numbers on that. That's what I would say. I would say that there are ways to do... I was going to make the point that Professor Jackson made on networks. I think networking is an important international outcome. It's one of the ones that you mentioned in the documents that you provided, but there's not an existing indicator. There are methods for understanding networks. There's network analysis that can look at the density, who's talking to who, who's influencing who, how that changes over time, what the shape of that network looks like. Again, at the end of the day, what does that tell you? You still have to say, does that network, despite this change or despite this growth, does it really meet your goals? That's what you're looking at. Thank you very much. Thank you, convener. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. I just wanted to follow up on some of the themes that colleagues have already touched on. Of course, Scotland's international engagement is about profile and narrative, as has already been said, and reputation. To me, that boils down to interest, affection and respect for Scotland. I think we already have quite a strong position on all those elements, and the Scottish Government's work has added to that. That's important because of practical matters, for example trade, areas of humanitarian assistance, where Scotland has a small international development programme but has high impact on how it does it. It's about partnership and it's about working with others elsewhere to try and positively affect UK policy. That's been touched on. I wondered, as well as looking out, how important we also need to consider these matters about how it affects Scotland within, in that, if we're not doing the international work and continuing to develop that profile and those narratives and that reputation, the concept of internationalism at home may diminish. I just wondered if you had any reflections on the importance of government leadership, not just on being a good global citizen, but how that positively influences good global citizenship among the population here? I think that you can't divorce the two. I think that they're very connected and they should be connected in terms of government outreach. I think that, especially for all state actors on the international stage, they're doing what they're doing in international relations, in part because international effects almost everything that they do at home. Those areas should not be separated arbitrarily, but especially for a devolved nation like Scotland, its devolved competencies, education, for example, are very much affected by what's going on internationally. Those two have to be joined up. That could be part of the narrative and that's an advantage of narratives as you can think about what you're saying out there in terms of what Scotland has to contribute, but you're also, importantly, communicating that to your own citizens about why that's important, how it affects their daily lives. I don't think that's a very difficult case to make anymore. I think that there are two things that I would highlight. The first is that disconnection between the local and the national international is really helpful in concrete cases, for example, climate change, where I think that this population of Scotland can feel that it's involved in a global effort to try and save the planet, not to put too fine a point on it. That might have positive effects on engagement and that can be transferred internationally to questions like human rights or the war in Ukraine, which has been in a very positive way, has mobilised support within Scotland and around across the west. Scotland, because I'm a historian, and this is another kind of professional deformation, but I really think that Scotland has such a long history of being at the centre of engaging in internationalist causes, peace especially, and yet there isn't a lot of work within Scottish universities on that history. I'm not a historian of Scotland, I'm a historian of international relations in especially Europe, but I have always tried to make the case without much success that we need more work on local movements and their contribution to internationalist causes, but that's probably not really of central interest to this committee, I'm sorry, to bring it up, it's more of a bugbear of mine from years gone by. On that, Mr McPherson, Professor Jackson makes a good point in terms of the long history. I was in Vera in the Netherlands a couple of weeks ago, where, of course, you have the Scots House, you have the Conservator of the Rights and the Privileges of the Scots in Vera in the Netherlands, a huge amount of interest locally amongst the Dutch, and that's a relationship that goes back to the 15th century, possibly before that. Professor Jackson is right, this is something that has a long history and it's maybe something that we need to think about, drilling into that history a little bit more, because I'm not historians, but I hope that Professor Jackson won't mind me saying that we study history to inform us of our present as well. If we look at some of the priorities just now, I suspect that the biggest issue that many of you will have raised by your constituents is the cost of living crisis. The cost of living crisis is, of course, driven, in part, by our relationship with the European Union, in part with the impact of Russia's war in Ukraine. Whether we like it or not, we are deeply impacted by the world around us and by events often beyond our control. That's the same anywhere. In terms of prioritisation, that's obviously scrutinised by the Scottish Government over, but I think that there are legitimate questions. If you look at the Scottish Government's goals around engagement with the European Union, do the resources match that? If you look at some of the other goals on climate, does it match it? I'm not expressing an opinion either way, but I just think that those are very legitimate questions to be had. On the way here today, I was refreshing myself having another quick look at the Flemish Government, for example, the International Affairs Department with missions and its stated goals in terms of education, climate change, but also with some missions at international organisations, places like Geneva and New York, Paris, because of the crossover between those and actually it has an international mission in Brussels, even though Brussels is the capital of Flanders for very obvious reasons. Those are questions around how you prioritise those resources and if they match domestic priorities at home, I suppose, goes back to that fundamental question, which is difficult to match as to whether or not taxpayers are getting value for money, and some of that is within your domestic priorities and some of that is about being a good global citizen, and that's where political leadership is not inconsequential in terms of how that's taken forward, but prioritising is difficult, because there will always be things that a Government just can't do. Thank you. Mr Bibby. Good morning, panel, and I too welcome the establishment of the Scottish Council on Global Affairs. I've always heard before about the Scottish Government and the UK Government sharing many of the same priorities when it comes to international work and diplomacy. Firstly, I ask the panel, would they agree with that? I note from Professor Carbo's submission that a measurement of Scottish Government's international policies is the ability to influence UK foreign policy. That would obviously be a positive, but again, how do we measure that, particularly given many of the same priorities that might be shared to begin with? I'll start there then. My point here is that Scotland has relations with the world in its own outreach and its own external relations, but is a constituent part of UK foreign policy. UK foreign policy is Scottish foreign policy, English foreign policy, and all the constituent nations. Of course, the Scottish Government does try to influence UK foreign policy, especially when it affects domestic policies and domestic life here in Scotland. My general point was that that should be considered as part of the measurement of Scottish external relations and looking at what is done. Again, that's often out of the Scottish Government's control. It depends on the UK Government's reception of that. Those attempts may be rebuffed at times. They may be successful. They may be joined up at times. Looking at the channels for those influence and what the Scottish Government is trying, what works, what doesn't, how they may expand those, how they may form... I know that there are already coalitions that are formed with the Welsh Government and others. What's the extent of that? It's not as much measurement, as I mentioned, but more assessment. What are they doing in that way to influence UK foreign policy, which influences Scotland? Is that helpful? Thank you. On that point, Professor Carb was right that UK and Scottish priorities will overlap very significantly. The Scottish Government will try and influence that. That isn't something that's unique to this particular Scottish Government, but if you go back, Secretary of State Ian Lang opened an office in Brussels in 1992 with the express purpose of trying to influence EU policy, but also have an influence on wider UK policy as well, that was pursued after the devolved era. I think that's something that's been entirely legitimate to do because you'll have a set of priorities. Given the nature of devolution, they may at times diverge, and you might want to see a little bit more action on climate change, you might want to see a little bit more proximity to say some of the EU rules, and I think that that will always be a feature for any devolved administration. I think that there's also the point that, again, Scotland and the UK having so much overlap, and I know sometimes with the legitimate political discourse, and I've been part of that myself, in the past I think that we forget that there is a lot of commonality in terms of reform policy, but that's true of wider Western European countries. That's why multilateralism is so important. I wrote a book on Scotland's place in the world, and I remember speaking to a former Danish Cabinet Minister whose take was their members of every international organisation they can be because it's their way of engaging and influencing other countries because there's a significant impact. Germany's domestic and foreign policy will necessarily have a significant impact on Denmark's. I think that that's something that will always be an area. There are huge areas of overlap and common cause. Just by the nature of it, it tends to be the areas of disagreement are the ones that we see, and that's perfectly legitimate, that's something. If you look at some of the big areas around climate change and being the biggest to a certain extent around development of the economy, around the situation with the war in Ukraine, you do see those areas of overlap. What I always found quite interesting, and I'd be happy to provide a note provided by Lord Howell of Guilford, a former Foreign Office official, is taking it to the next level and the ways in which the UK Foreign Office can sometimes use that diversity within the UK to further its own foreign policy aims. That might be engagement with Diaspora, but it might also be allowance that different parts of the UK have different relationships with the rest of the world. The world's world is a big place, so you want to use everything at your disposal to try and reach those and, of course, on international development. I think that, as Jack McConnell said, there's plenty of work to go around in that particular area, of course. I don't think that I have a lot useful to add to what my colleagues have just said, other than to say that our direct experience of the Scottish Government's representation in Ottawa was a great illustration of how there's a confluence of interests and close working relationships, and obviously looking from the outside, a great deal of co-operation and respect between the Scottish representation at the High Commission in Ottawa and the High Commissioner and her team. I think that that's a great example of how Scotland can support representation that is a force multiplier across the board for both UK and Scottish interests. Dr Allan, who wants to do it again? Professor Gethan, you mentioned Flanders and Denmark as examples of countries that want to do and engage in multilateral diplomacy and multilateral institutions as many as they can. Obviously, Scotland is doing that to some extent, as you mentioned, in Brussels with the EU, but other multilateral institutions that we should be involved in or could have opportunities to be involved in in the future. Any of you that's open to any of you who wants to comment. Shall I kick off? What I've always found really interesting, and again, we're actually here with our head of operations, John Edward, who's recently appointed as well. I'm probably creating more work for John and for other colleagues, but actually there's probably a bit of work to be done in terms of looking at how other sub-state actors interact in international affairs. I've done some of my own research, I've had a bit of a look, but if you look at the gains, they're really interesting. In Denmark you've got a model whereby Faroe Islands and Greenland are part of Denmark, but they have very significant foreign policy tools at their disposal. There's even a treaty of nuke on defence issues between Denmark, Greenland and the United States because of the military base air. Faroe Islands, obviously, is always sat outside the European Union. The Holland Islands, which are islands, they've got a distinct relationship with Sweden and Finland, negotiated their own way into the European Union and in places like Belgium, Denmark and elsewhere, there's parity of esteem in terms of diplomats and diplomatic representation, which can be helpful in terms of engagement, although, as Professor Jackson said, in areas like Ottawa you've got Scottish Government officials like John Devine doing a fantastic job and working closely with colleagues in the High Commission. If you look elsewhere, and you see it in Germany as well, whereby states in the lander will be parties to international related constants treaty as an example, but also Bavaria, just given its history, will have a particular relationship with the Czech Republic, for example, with a distinct, particular history. There are examples elsewhere in the world, and although we will consistently say that it is very difficult to measure some of this, I think that there's always a role to be played. In other countries, we'll see and look at the things that we in Scotland do well, but I think that there's always a role to be played in looking at other countries, how they do it and if lessons can be learned. That goes in both directions, but there are some really interesting engagements between the sub-state level and the state level. Finally, in places like Denmark, Belgium and Germany, those will be distinctly set out to try to minimise areas of disagreement. You stole my Faroe Islands example, so I was going to do that, because Faroe Islands is engaged with a lot of international institutions. It's entered its own trade agreements with a lot of other states or other international organisations. Lots of sub-states are present at Davos, for example, are members of international organisations. I can't answer your question directly. Do I have a list of where Scotland should be involved that it's not? I'd have to do the work on that, but I think the main point is the more the better. In some ways, international organisations are really good for small states and for sub-states, so they multiply those communication channels. They're cheaper than having embassies or international offices in every country. They provide that kind of conversation and that form for co-operation, so just like the answer to the Danes gauge to Professor Cathins is the more the better. It's usually fairly economical to join those international organisations and there's no reason why Scotland shouldn't be involved as other sub-states are. Different constitutional contexts allow different levels and different types of agreements as do different international organisations. Nothing useful to ask. Thank you. It's worth pointing out that, as convener, I was with the Presiding Officer at the Nordic Council this year and I think the committee has tried to engage to look north as well as to Europe post-Brexit. I'm going to go to Mr Golden next. Thank you, convener. I'm just interested to explore how we scrutinise and falling on from some of Don Cameron's point. The cabinet secretary has said that the global affairs framework recognises the interlinkages between our domestic and international work and is rooted in the national performance framework. However, SPICE has said that the lack of targets within the framework and the absence of a clear link with the country engagement strategies means that scrutiny is challenging. I wonder what the panel's thoughts are on how the Scottish Government's international work is rooted in the national performance framework. Professor Jackson. Thanks for that. I think that this is very difficult because, apart from the difficulty in imposing measurements or indicators which is a language that is used in some of the documentation that we have been sent, there are other constraints as well. Structural constraints, and I think that we have generally been quite positive about things so far, but there are structural constraints that need to be acknowledged in order to get a realistic idea of where Scotland is. It's not so much constitutional arrangements which is what they are. For me, in some ways, the discourse inside Scotland, especially, is really unhelpful because I'm Canadian. The idea that Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia, which are the three provinces that have the largest amount of international engagement in Canada for obvious reasons, different reasons but obvious in each case, the idea that this would be considered to be a problem inside any of these provinces or outside is just not an issue. In Scotland, we see all the time that there is an initiative from the Scottish Government. There are voices raised saying that this is the threatens to go beyond constitutional limits, etc. Somehow, the internal discourse in Scotland, especially probably also partly in the rest of the UK, needs to change, and that's a tricky one for me. There are always voices raised on both sides of the argument which have very little to do with the business at hand, if you see what I mean, the business of promoting Scotland's economy, what it has to offer in terms of education, culture, etc. Which have very little to do with particular constitutional arrangements that are just something that you just would think a region would do. I hope that I'm making sense. I think that that's really helpful because certainly in this place it's a polarised world where every policy decision is viewed through a binary optic and that's deeply disappointing and it's getting worse unfortunately. Within the context of that, I think that your comments are very useful. I'm an optimist and I'm hoping that it will get better. I think that it is getting better, but it's hard for us to see at the minute. One way to answer your question without the real specifics that I think you want that I can't deliver is when I look at the national outcomes, what stood out to me and I think that I mentioned this in the evidence that I submitted is that there's a separate one for international. I think that's appropriate. I think international is different and we should think about what are the international outcomes that the Scottish Government is or is not delivering. But that said, you should also think about the connections. You can't think about education without thinking also about the international. You can't think about the economy without also not thinking about the international. I would suggest to the committee that it would be really helpful to try to get some indicators that go across those national outcomes, to look at the connections that are happening between what you're looking at when you look at international and what you're looking at in the other national outcomes. Thank you. Stephen, you might have an interesting perspective. I wouldn't disagree entirely with my colleagues. I would say that this is something that Scotland is not alone in. I think that in Brussels, 300 sub-state actors engage in trying to influence the European Union, for example, all the way from probably small regions that have one person working full-time all the way through, say, the German lander who put very significant resources in there, but 300 is not inconsequential. The one thing that I would say, Professor Carbaugh was quite right in looking at those interlinks. I'd even roll it back further and sometimes my question for, if you're asking the Scottish Government, is what are those offices for? For example, we invest in the office in Brussels. I think that it's the right thing to do. What's that fundamentally seeking to achieve? When the Government sets out its objectives, is it to boost trade and investment? Is it for soft power? Is it to boost our educational cultural links? All those things. I think that you can find measurements based in the Government's own objectives. Yes, it's hard, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to, and I know that it's a job that the committee will do, from trying to assess whether or not that's money well spent, whether or not that is meeting, roughly speaking, the objectives of the Government in a given area. That isn't something again that is exclusive to Scotland. It's something that happens across the United Kingdom, it's something that happens across Europe, in the wider world. Professor Jackson, as a Canadian, was right to highlight the way that works in Canada, which is a really interesting illustration. For example, the engagement that the Canadian provinces had in the negotiation of the huge trade deal between Canada and the European Union, and they played a really important part, because it had a very significant impact on their responsibilities. It is happening, but the Scottish Government is setting out a very clear strategy on what it seeks to achieve, and then almost working back from that on whether or not it is achieving those objectives. Thank you, that's incredibly useful. A number of members, which I hope have supplementaries at the moment, because I'm conscious that Mr Ruskell hasn't had a chance to come in, do you want to come in just now, Mark? Or is it a different topic? It's a different topic. Right, okay. Can I have a very succinct place, because we are tight for time this morning. Mr Bibby, then? So, very succinctly, we've talked about the difficulty in measuring the areas of success, but I think just from Professor Gaffin's point there, I was wondering whether actually we are failing to measure the basics. So, for example, last week, I was at an event celebrating the establishment of a new flight from Edinburgh Airport to the United States. We talk about being a better connected country. There are some basic measurements there in terms of how we are physically connected in Scotland to the rest of the world. Are we failing to measure the basics, essentially? I think it's an interesting point. My colleagues are overusing this. I'm not sure. I think you're doing as well as you can in trying terms. Look, this will always be really difficult, to measure the areas that are out with the control of the Scottish Government. In fairness, when it comes to foreign policy, there are so many areas that are out with the control of the UK Government as well. So, I think some of the areas that have been set out, you will sit and look at the Scottish Government's manifesto in which it was elected and you will say, are they achieving the commitments to which they promised? I think sometimes just stripping it back to basics to find out if it's achieving it with the understanding there are certain things that we cannot do and looking at if limited resources are being prioritised in the correct way. To be fair, I think that I agree with my colleague that this will always be hard, but that shouldn't stop us from looking and assessing us to whether or not it's being aimed in the appropriate way at the objectives of the Government to further Scotland's role as a good global citizen and in the interests of taxpayers. Professor Jackson talked about the mutual benefit to the UK Government of having other entities, including the Scottish Government, engaging in international affairs. I just wondered if you wanted to expand on that, because it's not just the Scottish Government, it's the Welsh Government, it's the British Council, it's COSLA. I just wondered if you wanted to say any more about that, about how it benefits the UK Government and is a mutual positive rather than anything other. Well, I think that there are obvious economic benefits as well, because what's good for, for example, the local economy in Scotland tends to be good for the UK balance payments, the Treasury, more taxes coming in, etc. The more cultural exchanges, the better the more tourists, for example, a flight from the US to Edinburgh, an extra one will almost certainly bring in a few more tourists and these are economic benefits. I think also, but this is one of those value judgments, value calls. Presenting the United Kingdom as a diverse, modern, connected society to the rest of the world that tolerates the plurality of voices is a real positive. A way in which the Union can project itself to the world in a way that's probably a little more united than is happening at the moment. These are all very good things and support Scotland in its own economic interests while at the same time being of benefit to the rest of the United Kingdom. Again, because we're employees of universities, I think that universities have a crucial role to play in this. Almost entirely beneficial, I think. One of the ways in which we are as a community beginning to contribute to these conversations is to address squarely and honestly in a way that not all institutions around the world do so. The fact that some of the dark side of Scotland's internationalist past its role in the promotion of slavery and its profit from the slave economies in the West Indies and in the southern United States, but addressing that square on is a way to, and in doing so, forging relationships with communities in the West Indies is another way in which there's this confluence of interests that I talk about between UK interests and Scottish interests, which are both going to benefit from projecting the United Kingdom as a pluralist modern tolerant society with sensitivity to its past, but also as a promoter of those global citizen values that we spoke about earlier. I guess I'm stating the obvious in a way, but it's important, I think. Thank you, thanks. Mr Cameron. Thank you. As distinctly as possible, on the subject of international offices, do you think we are in the right places? Is it anywhere in the world that we're not, that we should be, or that we are where we shouldn't be? Resource is a limited, I think, we will accept that we can't be everywhere, but I just wanted to give any other Scottish Council on global affairs, whether you had a view on that briefly. I think it's difficult. I have to say it. I think it was good to see the opening of offices that cover the Nordic and Baltic states, given the historic links, but also trade, educational and other links. It was interesting looking at some of the Flemish, for example, with those who had offices at international organisations. They will always be limited, that's the problem. I think that there are also questions to be raised. I think that the office in Brussels is a really significant, really good team that has a fantastic bunch of officials there. But if the aim is to deepen engagement, if the Scottish Government's aim is to deepen engagement in the European Union, is there enough resource there, of course? That's always a question, I'm probably not well placed, but I think that these are all legitimate questions when you have very, very limited resources. I think that the Scottish Government does well in terms of limited resources to reach those places, and that focus, obviously, on North America and Europe is an understandable one. It is understandable. I think that something in the global south would be good. And looking at places where it's not just a regional, it's not just an office in a country, but it's an office that reaches out to other countries in the region that just maximises it for the cost. Thank you. In fact, I could return briefly to the discourse around the international offices and international missions. We did a report on the international offices, a consensual report, very, very positive of the reach here. Indeed, the British Council, in its submission, said that it would welcome more being opened around the world. But if I can maybe direct this to Professor Jackson, sorry. The discourse is really difficult politically within the chamber about the costs, about whether it's a waste of money, whether it's pretend embassies. We've seen the intervention of Mr Cleverly writing to Mr Robertson, and Mr Robertson has asked him to withdraw any kind of indication that they've been misused or that the Scottish Government should be curtailed in its use. You mentioned Canada, and this would almost be unheard of there. Are there other examples of up-sub-state Governments being at odds with their national Government? Is that not unusual? Canada's history is not entirely positive when it comes to, it's not entirely free of controversy and confrontation. Although the case of Quebec now, it's quite stunning to me how quickly the discourse changed in Canada. As far as other examples, I suppose one would be the Russian Federation and its role, but I'm not sure that that can be studied as an example of anything at the moment, but there are relatively few. India might be an example, because there are different areas of India that have very different economic ecosystems, and that might be an area to think about. In general, my view is that Canada, partly because I'm Canadian and I'm familiar with it, provides a few obvious examples of the way in which different regions can be positively supported by the Canadian Government. In a way that I think is happening in Scotland, not necessarily. Africa to me is a continent that probably needs to be more on the Scottish Government's radar than it is. That would be my answer, which is basically to echo what my colleague Professor Carpaw has just said. I hope that that's sufficient. Thank you. Professor Ruskell. I've just got a couple of wrap-up questions. I was particularly interested in your points, Professor Jackson, about Scotland's colonial history. Is it important that, in a way that we project ourselves as a good global citizen, that we are more aware of what that colonial history has involved, but how do we then use that to seek reparation and to put in place meaningful opportunities to move those injustices forward? The example of Glasgow University, where I was involved in, tangentially, in the formulation of policy, it was a history PhD student that first began to uncover. The extent to which the university had its initial wealth depended on either bequests or investments in economic interests directly involved in the slave trade and the plantation economy. I think that the university faced a choice. You could either lean into it and try and address it squarely and honestly, or try and ignore it. The decision that was taken in that case was that this is a problem that needed to be addressed squarely. It has become the origins of a very positive relationship that is emerging between Glasgow and the West Indies, and will probably in the end benefit the university. If you take that example and think about Scottish society as a whole, I suppose there are examples where the fact that Scotland was a pillar of empire, and I am of the view that the union was a union to participate in empire. That was a major impetus. A colleague of mine, Alan McInnes, has made this argument very persuasively. I think that acknowledging that publicly can only help. But it does raise the question of reparation, because it is all over the world. The British Empire was a global enterprise. That is tricky, but the first step would be recognition. I speak as a historian of Europe who did not work on empire, and has only in the last decade or so overcome my initial reluctance to take on board the extent to which you cannot study European international relations without studying European imperial colonial policies. That aspect of reparation perhaps brings me to climate justice. There have been quite a few comments this morning about climate change and that being a strategic priority. Can I get your reflections on the COP processes and the role of sub-state actors within COP or at least on the side of COP? Was the Scottish Government's involvement in COP 26 effective? Do you see other forums in which sub-state actors are coming together that present opportunities for developing new initiatives and leading change that perhaps can then feed into the COP process? I do. I think that climate justice is a really good example of where the action that is happening is in these multilateral forums and in the environmental area. Those are compared to lots of other policy areas in international relations. Those naturally include more than just the states. They include sub-states, they include NGOs. So I think there's lots of opportunities for Scotland to be involved, to try to even lead, to form coalitions with like-minded states. And I think that COP and Glasgow was a good example and how small states can be seen as and sub-states can be seen as more neutral leaders in these kinds of negotiations. It's very successful. I think that the COP issue of climate justice is a really good illustration here. If you look at some of Scotland's leadership, for example, the Lawson Damage Fund, that's something that we saw Wallonia falling up as. That was the second country to introduce the Lawson Damage Fund and it was interesting that it was two sub-state actors who had taken a lead on that particular issue. If you look at some of the co-operation, it could probably be deepened at a local authority level. If you look at some of the cities around the world, global cities, who are taking action. After all, when it comes to the action that we need to take to meet the climate emergency, a lot of that action will be taken not at a state level, but often at a very local level. If it comes in terms of transport or if it comes in heating systems and a whole range of areas that I know you're well aware of, there's an interesting illustration in the United States. Of course, during the Trump presidency, we saw a lot of divergence with states who felt they needed to take action. We're signing up to agreement, so you had US state engagement at COP26 in Glasgow, but that wasn't a new thing. If you even go back, I can remember COP15 in Copenhagen when the Scottish Government did a lot of work there, especially when this Parliament passed the 2009 act for the 42 per cent by 2020 target, but they weren't alone in those forms. I'm not sure that you cannot be effective in taking forward climate justice or tackling climate change without full engagement at a sub-state level, because they're the ones who need to implement many of the decisions that are made. I know that members of this committee would have attended COP in Glasgow. You'll have seen that there were delegations from every level all around the world, as well as civil society and others, but that sub-state level in terms of climate is a really good illustration. We see that throughout the world. My last question is about feminist foreign policy, which is something that we haven't discussed yet this morning, and just where you're seeing particular leadership and particular initiatives on that globally, that, again, sub-state actors can be involved with. I think that any state and some cities have been involved in some of this discussion as well. Feminist foreign policy has a wide range of issues. It includes climate justice. It includes tackling global inequalities, poverty around the world. I think that it fits nicely into the good citizen category as big as that category is. There's been lots of examples of states adopting that, and there's been a proliferation of states adopting feminist foreign policy objectives. They can label them feminist foreign policy, but they're just a recognition of a very kind of human rights, pro-value, pro-equality, somewhat anti-military, only kind of way of looking at the world. No, I think that's absolutely right. Just to give you an example, in late April, I am part of a project on the history of Franco-British relations since 1815, and we had our big closing event at the British Embassy in Paris. There was someone from the UK desk at the K-Dorsey who asked to meet me for coffee the next day, and I wanted to talk about our exciting research, but I wanted to talk about ways in which to engage with Scottish support for feminist foreign policy and to ask the question, will this evaporate with the change in First Ministers? That was an interesting example of how Scotland's commitment to this has registered in Europe. Unfortunately, that ends our time that we have available this morning, as we've got another agenda item, but thank you, Professor Gethans, Professor Carbone and Professor Jackson for your attendance this morning, and we're briefly suspending to loud witnesses to on board for the next session. Our third agenda item today is an evidence session on the supplementary legislative consent memorandum for retained EU law revocation and reform bill. We are joined remotely this morning by Angus Robertson, Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Elliot Robertson, the head of the EU Secretary at the Scottish Government, Chris Nicholson, solicitor and head of the constitutional reform and external affairs branch of the Scottish Government, Greg Walker, retained EU law management programme leading the Scottish Government, and could I invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement, please? Sorry, Cabinet Secretary, we can't hear you. Do you want to try again? With a bit of luck, it'll work this time, where people nodding or not nodding. That's a thumbs up from the committee convener. Well, thank you very much, convener, for the opportunity to join you. I'm sorry, I'm not with you in person. I joined you from Brussels, where I'm doing some work promoting major events in Scotland, not the second world championships later this year. But back to the evidence session this morning, it's an opportunity to update you all on our response to the UK Government's retained EU law bill, and you'll know that the UK Government has finally seen sense and scrapped plans to automatically remove thousands of retained EU laws, the UK statute book, by the end of this year. But let's be absolutely clear, fundamentals of this bill haven't changed, and I would draw the committee's attention to three particular issues. First, the bill continues to put at risk vital protections enjoyed by the people of Scotland for almost 50 years. The automatic sunset has gone, but the UK Government still plans to scrap almost 600 pieces of retained EU law by the end of December. The rest of those laws remain in scope of the UK Government's reform and deregulation agenda. My officials received a list of those laws only three weeks ago. At least nine are of real concern. I have no confidence, I have zero confidence that the UK Government will agree to their removal from the bill before royal assent, which could only be a few weeks away. But officials are considering how best to provide information to Parliament. Secondly, UK ministers remain empowered to act in devolved areas Thirdly, the amendments to the bill clearly triggered the legislative consent requirement on Friday 19 May. I received a letter from Minister Ghani asking for that consent. By Monday 22 May, one working day, the UK Government had decided to proceed without it. My officials continue to assess the long-term policy implications of the bill, and I can reassure you and colleagues on the committee that I want to maintain an open dialogue with the committee as we make progress on that. I am happy to take question. Thank you very much. The UK Government has stated that both the UK Government and the devolved Governments agree that, where common frameworks are operating, they are the right mechanism for discussing rule reform in the areas that they cover. When using the powers in the bill, we will use common frameworks to engage with the devolved Governments on decision making across the UK. Do you have a response to that statement? Do you agree, cabinet secretary? I think that we are in a work-in-progress when it comes to common frameworks. We have had recent examples, for example, on the deposit return scheme, where mechanisms have clearly not been working, and this has led to a situation that is acting against the devolved decision-making powers of the Scottish Parliament, and not having the most constructive work-in-relationship that we can have. There is nothing theoretically standing in the way of having a constructive work-in-relationship and using the common frameworks. Without exercising the committee on the issue that you are very well versed on, since the common frameworks introduction, we have seen the passage of the internal market act, which acts sometimes in parallel but overrides areas where, if the common frameworks were the only mechanism through which one might be able to progress issues, are then trumped by the UK Government being able to make a decision and suggesting that something is the interest, as they see it, of the UK single market. To give you an example of that, you could easily imagine how... I apologise for the delay due to technicalities. I believe that we are going back to the cabinet secretary in audio only. Cabinet Secretary, we missed most of the answer to that question. I do not know if you want to just reflect and say anything more on it. Well, convener, forgive me if I am repeating anything that I said in my previous answer, which, not knowing at the point that I was cut off, I was reflecting on the fact that not only do we have common frameworks playing a role in inter-governmental relations in the UK, but also the internal market act that was legislated subsequently and is, in many respects, trumping the common frameworks approach to things. I was reflecting on the fact that I could easily have imagined a Scottish Government proposal around the introduction, for example, of minimum unit pricing for alcohol making its way through the common frameworks process, but now the UK Government would be far more likely to invoke the internal market act as it is effectively doing on in relation to the proposals for deposit return scheme, including glass, and using that to block progress. One cannot look at common frameworks in isolation from understanding how the internal market act can work and how the UK Government chooses to use it to block policy proposals in convolved areas. Thank you for that, cabinet secretary. I remember taking evidence early doors on the possibility of raising the minimum unit pricing in line with inflation and that being a concern as well. Although it was pre-Brexit legislation that now the internal market act might open that up to legal challenge, have you any thoughts on that? I would just reflect on the fact that I think I am correct in saying that I am giving evidence to you on the 29th of June in relation to the operation of devolution post-Brexit and these things, whether it is intergovernmental relations, codifying expected norms of behaviour between Governments, sovereignty of Westminster, the school convention, delegated powers for UK ministers to legislate within devolved competence or indeed the UK internal market. I think that those are areas that we will be discussing at some length, but it would be fair to say that this is an evolving, moving situation. I have to say as somebody who thought that the devolution settlement was exactly that. It was settled that it clearly is not and a variety of mechanisms are being used to roll back on devolution. To move to questions, I have Dr Alwyn there, Mr Cameron. Thank you. I suppose my question really you kind of touched on it, is about the rule bill itself and obviously we have been seeing a ping-pong of amendments going back and forth between the two houses of the UK Parliament. Did the UK Government consult the Scottish Government at any point about the content of these amendments and their likely effect on how you would have to plan around the laws that you have mentioned? I think that the best co-operation that there was was actually with members of the House of Lords who were concerned with the UK Government's proposals because, as is often the case with the ping-pong scenarios, proposals are made at quite short notice and then the ability to influence how they are debated and voted on in the House of Lords is often quite an immediate issue. I certainly never got the impression that the UK Government had the interests of devolved administrations as a high priority throughout this process. If they had, they wouldn't have brought forward the legislation as was drafted and they were intending to carry on regardless of legislative consent being withheld in terms of the unamended bill. They have gone on to make their concessions in relation to what is known as the cliff edge, that is, throwing all of the babies out with the bathwater approach, which was what they intended to do in the first case, and rather they would turn the process on its head and list pieces of legislation that they wished to see fall off the statute book. That was a late change. That is not something that we were consulted on. I'm sure they would probably say that the views of the Scottish Government had already been articulated, our opposition to their original approach, for example. In fact, I've seen correspondence saying that they have in part acted on the views of concerns of both the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government in relation to the rule bill. In terms of how they have then moved on to the next stage of the process, where we were informed on a Friday about the changes in relation to seeking legislative consent and then on Monday confirming from the, I think it was from the dispatch box in the House of Lords that they would carry on regardless, drives a coach and horses through how the sole convention is supposed to work, how on earth is the Scottish Parliament, whether it's committees or in plenary, and indeed the Scottish Government is supposed to have time to consider a proposal from the UK Government in relation to legislative consent. How is one supposed to do that over a weekend? No notice given that they would carry on regardless on the Monday. None of that speaks to devolved custom and practice operating in any meaningful or respectful sense whatsoever. On the one hand, we have to say that it's an improvement that the rule bill is not going to see a great amount of legislation sunsetted in the way that was originally planned, but there is still to be a list of more than 500 pieces of legislation that there is a plan to get off the statute book by the end of this year. Scottish Government experts have been able to identify nine pieces of legislation that still have an impact, devolved impact in Scotland, yet our ability to have those pieces of legislation taken out of the updated rule bill is something that we don't have a high degree of success as a prospect. I'm going to move to Mr Cameron. Thank you, convener. I mean, dwyling down from the nuts and bolts of this, which we've got to, these nine instruments which are considered by the Scottish Government to contain at least some devolved provisions applicable in Scotland, and the Scottish Government is not satisfied our obsolete. Can I ask you, cabinet secretary, what steps the Scottish Government is taking, both at official level and ministerial level, and a number of your officials on this call, what steps is the Scottish Government taking to secure these nine instruments where there is a question mark, and remove them from the schedule? First, you can see on the screen that I'm joined by Chris Nicholson, by Greg Walker and by Elliot Roberts, some colleagues of mine who advised on these issues. I'll just make some general observations about that. Mr Cameron, then ask if any of my colleagues want to add comments after my own. First, the list of nine laws that include devolved competence, which we believe may still be operable in some way, are areas for which further consideration is needed. It may be that some are of more import, it might be that some are less, but they have an impact on involved areas of responsibility and are currently operating beyond doubt. We have raised concerns around those laws. For example, they include energy efficiency regulations, they include port services regulations and others. We have raised those concerns with the UK Government, but it's our understanding that the schedule will not be amended prior to royal consent, and that's anticipated in June. Part of the challenge that we've got is that the UK Government is extremely keen to pass legislation notwithstanding their major change in approach extremely quickly. Our ability to play a significant role in that process is much diminished. We remain in close contact with the UK Government on that, but it's fair to say that there is no expectation that the schedule will be amended prior to royal consent. Would any of my colleagues on the call wish to add any observations about the list of nine items and our ability to influence the process of Westminster around those? I think that Mr Elliott Robertson has indicated that he wants to comment. Robertson, you're not getting any sound. Does another official want to try to come in? Sorry, the sound was dreadful. Mr Walker? Thank you. There is a delegated power in the bill as amended, a preservation power that allows relevant ministers to preserve an instrument essentially by excluding it from the schedule, and that is a concurrent power. In principle, there could be a Scottish statutory instrument solely or partly dealing with the nine special cases. The LCM makes clear that analysis is on-going. There are stakeholder positions to consider. We don't have a response from the UK Government yet. Because it is a concurrent power, there may be some possibility of a UK statutory instrument delivering an acceptable result for devolved competences that could be potentially consented to, and then that consent decision being scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament. This is a very new schedule. All those possibilities are on the table, but given that nothing on the schedule is wholly Scotland-only devolved, it may be that that ASI power is something that we need to think about. The decisions are under way with the parliamentary authorities about how the various types of ASIs under the bill would best be handled. To be clear on that, there is a power for the Scottish ministers to restate these nine instruments, if necessary, notwithstanding issues around roll ascent. Can I just be clear about that? It is fair to acknowledge that there is a form of preservation power that is analogous to the preservation power under the original bill when we were dealing with the general sunset, but it is not immediately clear that that can be a complete solution to issues. We need to continue that analysis and the Parliament will be updated. I note in the letter that the cabinet secretary has just sent the committee data 31 May that although the bill might not be able to be amended in time, there is the possibility of agreement outside amending the bill whereby a similar result could be achieved, whereby these nine instruments where there is doubt could be agreed. Is that correct, cabinet secretary? I think that these are... I am not sure if I have the microphone that I will carry on as I do. I think that these are areas that are being explored by officials in the Scottish Government and at Westminster. I think that part, given what has already just been said by colleagues on the... before me, I think that there are also related issues at the extent to which measures are fully devolved or whether there is a degree of shared competence around that. I do not think that this is a surprise to committee members that this was always a consideration that gave us a concern in that. It is not as simple as saying that the Scottish Government would wish to see something remain on the statute book in Scotland whereas the UK Government might wish to see it no longer on the statute books as it would apply to England and Wales. However, it is whether there is a duty on both Governments to try and deal with issues where there are currently shared competences as well that are contributing factor to the complication of the situation that we find ourselves in. I suppose that it is a reflection of the circumstance being one that is fast moving because we do not have clarity on all of this and then leads to the subsidiary but no less important point about what is the role of the Scottish Parliament and Committee or plenary to have an understanding of the process and being able to play a part in scrutinising that. Thank you. Looking again then at that annex of laws that the Scottish Government considers are not obsolete and also the wider list of laws where it appears that you are in agreement with the Westminster Government that those laws are now obsolete that the vast majority of those are in the area of environment policy so I'm interested to know if the Scottish Government has been working to seek advice from environmental standards Scotland given that the ESS was established under the continuity act and has a key role in ensuring or advising government on alignment issues with the EU. Thank you very much for the question. I'll have to defer to colleagues about specific outside organisations but I would make the general observation which is that at the heart of the question is a reflection on the difficulty of trying to deal with hundreds and thousands of pieces of retained EU law to try and work out which are still operable which apply which require to be incorporated into what is being described as assimilated law going forward and to do so in such a way that gets maximum external expertise as part of that process and this is one of the areas that I think anybody who cares about the best legislative standards that we can have is deeply problematic because I've said this now a couple of times this morning that we're dealing with a fast moving situation so until very recently we were dealing with a situation where the major concern not the only but the major concern was that amongst the thousands of pieces of legislation that might fall off the statute book there might be additional laws that one had not even identified as being relevant and retained which would because they were overlooked fall off the statute book the major considerations until very recently now because of the change of the UK Government's approach we have a list of 500 plus pieces of legislation to be added to the schedule and the question of due diligence on all of these measures is a very good one can one say with absolute certainty that all of the laws beyond the nine that we have identified as potentially being a matter of concern have a quote, clean bill of health is is definitely a question that I have been very keen to make sure that we are as confident as we can be that we're not we're not losing effectively the high standards of European Union membership and legislation guaranteed for us before Brexit because as the committee knows it's the policy of the Scottish Government that is closely aligned to the high European standards that exist so we're seeing a pivot in terms of the approach of the UK Government to dealing with the retained EU law and we're having to use our resources as quickly as we possibly can given these timescales that we now have imposed on us by the UK Government in terms of their legislative programme and that will then evolve if we are to assume that the legislation indeed passed going forward but that raises as many questions as certainly you've been asking up until now but to the specific point about have specific external organisations being part of the sift process if one wants to call it that I would have to defer to I'd have to defer to colleagues on the call Mr Walker has indicated he wants to come in Cabinet Secretary you can tent for Mr Walker to come in Thank you so I think the member's right to highlight that on this particular list the volume of instruments does impact on our directorate General Net Zero so that Cyberculture Rural Environment, Environment and Forestry Marine Scotland, Transport Scotland and also Food Standards Scotland so the directorates who've been working on rule and on this particular list will naturally be working with internal resources and lasing stakeholders I have no knowledge if Environmental Standards Scotland specifically has been formally consulted or if that might be in hand because we have an on-going programme of work to look to but if helpful we could write back on that and the clerks could follow that up with us I think that that would be very useful given that ESS were established as a statutory independent advisor probably for these types of situations so I would have expected the Government to be the easing of the ESS on that Can I just then turn to Cabinet Secretary's letter a very useful letter that was sent to the committee last night Is there clarity over what that process is where there are laws which there are shared responsibilities between the Scottish Parliament and the UK on the understanding of the process is it a process that has to be absorbed within the processes within the common frameworks depending on what the policy area is and it then comes down to discussions between individual portfolio ministers between Governments and across the UK is it do you have clarity yet as to what that process for negotiation is is it between yourself and your counterpart ministers where does that conversation now take place because it doesn't seem to be a codified route to resolve areas where there's disagreement but there are shared responsibilities and therefore potentially a mismatch between approaches that could be taken in either the Scottish Parliament or the UK Parliament I think it's a very good question to which we have to get the best possible answer to how we work our way through what is a new situation so I think committee members understand that we are dealing now with a fundamentally different approach to retained EU law than we were dealing with even a few short weeks ago so I think it would be fair to say that these are processes that we are going to have to satisfy ourselves that meet the new circumstances which we find ourselves in and these are most certainly things that I'd be happy to update the committee on about how we propose to do that as you will have been able to to notice from Greg Walker's title there in terms of retained EU law management programme lead that we have an area of Scottish Government which is looking at this area across the piece in great detail and it is correct to say that there are some areas of ministerial responsibility which have a much bigger focus on that just because the corpus of European Union law is much more extensive in areas of the environment or agriculture, fisheries and so on than in some other policy areas and how we will take this to the different directorates of the Scottish Government as we go forward is definitely something that we are going to have to be focused on as we are getting greater clarity it goes without stressing at great length we are still talking about legislation which has been fundamentally changed during its course of parliamentary process at Westminster which has not yet been finalised so are we aware that we are going to have to react to that legislation in its final form yes absolutely is it going to be a serious administrative challenge yes it is is it something that we are going to have to build in appropriate mechanisms for the reasons that Mark Ruskell has outlined to make sure that there is coordination between Government ministers and then as I have said already in this evidence session I think the important role of Parliament in understanding the process we are of course not talking about the introduction of new legislation in the sense of novel legislation or novel legal requirements we're talking about effectively the maintenance of existing European Union law going forward Mark Ruskell is absolutely right to point to the mechanism by which we can make sure Government goes through this what will now be a new process to make sure that we retain the laws and safeguards that we wish because we're wanting to remain aligned and then as a consequence how we are best able to integrate that process into the wider parliamentary programme and in particular this committee's role in scrutinising my work and colleagues in this policy area The risk of complicating this even further how does that relate then to the internal market act so I'm looking at the schedule of laws that you may wish to retain here and some of those relate for example to GM crops and GM food stuffs would there then have to be a process of assessing whether the retention of a law in one part of the UK was compliant with IMA and is that again done between relevant portfolio ministers or it'd be useful to get some kind of insight or prediction about how that may play out Yeah, so this relates to how will the Scottish Government manage the alignment process with retained EU law that we wish to see maintained on the Scottish statute books when there might be a United Kingdom Government not minded to look sympathetically at Scotland remaining aligned with the higher European standards in any given policy area and I have to say that given the current approach of the UK Government I would be very concerned that they will look to involve themselves in decision making in policy areas that are devolved using the internal market act as a mechanism to effectively disregard the priorities of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament so there's two elements to Mark Ruskell's questions one, what is it that the Scottish Government needs to do to make sure that it is going to remain aligned with European Union legislation after the passage of this bill and the new approach in this bill so that is as I reflected on in my previous question is something that we are currently working through and then secondly what is my assessment on the United Kingdom Government will act in relation to our preferred policy priority which is to remain aligned with European Union standards where the UK Government's avowed position in many respects is to become non-aligned with European Union standards so they are wishing to diverge European Union standards and as we have seen in other policy areas would be unhappy for Scotland to do Lost audio again, I'm going to suspend briefly Wars, devolution and the involved settlement I fear Welcome back to committee again Cabinet Secretary we lost you briefly there I wonder if you want to continue with Mr Ruskell's Delighted to rejoin the committee for the third time Forgive me I'm not sure what point that I dropped off but I'll just give a short a short reprise of what I was saying to Mark Ruskell's question Reflection 1 was that we are very actively considering how it is that we will progress within Government the best understanding of what measures will be undertaken to remain aligned with European Union legislation However the second part of Mr Ruskell's question was around the risk of the UK Government using the Internal Market Act to block the aspirations of the Scottish Government and Parliament to remain aligned with European Union legislation Is that a significant fear that I share to which the answer was because if we look at the approach of the UK Government recently around a range of issues from the Gender Recognition Act to the Deposit Return Scheme is that they are prepared to look at a range of ways in which they can frustrate block, delay, undermine progress in devolved areas of responsibility and as a committee will be aware that the second proportion of retained EU law does not fall neatly into a basket of devolved and reserved areas so if these are pieces of legislation for which there is shared responsibility in a UK legislative setting am I confident that the UK Government would act in best faith so that Scotland can remain with European Union standards while they seek to diverge from European Union standards I have to say that I have grave concerns that the interventionist approach of the UK Government in devolved areas is one that they plan to develop and continue and that will make it more difficult for us to retain the higher standards of European Union legislation and safeguards that we intend to pursue but pursue it we will Thank you Thank you Good morning Cabinet Secretary One amendment to the rule bill passed by the House of Lords and subsequently proved by MPs places reporting duty on UK ministers to update the UK Parliament every six months on the progress of revoking EU law In your letter dated yesterday you said that you would be happy to consider what reporting might be appropriate by the Scottish Government as a result of this although you state the approach would be to do so annually by the way of Scottish Government's EU alignment reporting as opposed to by annually like the duty imposed on UK ministers Could you explain why and are you open to doing this more frequently? Welcome to the committee Mr Bibby Mr Bibby may not be aware but in previous evidence sessions I've said to the committee and I'm happy to say it again today that I am open to ensuring that we have the best reporting requirements that are commensurate with proposals that the Government is dealing with having set for 10 years in the European Scrutiny Committee and I understand the importance of this work and I want you all to be able to fulfil your obligations as a committee I think what's important from my point of view here is that we are in the process of updating our approach of reporting to the committee in relation to European Union alignment and I think the two things in terms of retained EU law and European Union alignment are areas where I think we can integrate that process and I am perfectly content as has been the case up until now for our officials, the committee's officials and the Scottish Government officials to work together about how we can best do that because I totally appreciate the needs, interests, concerns and expectations of committee members that they have the most up-to-date information that they have about this issue going forward so it's a work in progress and I'm perfectly content to have any suggestions from Mr Bibby, any other committee members or the committee as a whole as to how we can best do that I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and he's welcome to the committee I do believe that it is regrettable that UK Government have constructed such a tight timescale for scrutiny of these amendments and I do share the cabinet secretary's frustration with that I know what's been said earlier about an analysis of schedule 1 on going I appreciate the tight timescales of the UK Government's doing and there is the situation is evolving obviously as been mentioned analysis of schedule 1 is on going and there's been commitment for Parliament to be updated on that work I just wanted to press if there was a timescale for updating Parliament specifically on that work around schedule 1 and also the cabinet secretary has mentioned that his fear about the UK Government being prepared to reach a different conclusion on what should be done with a particular law in these areas out of the nine laws that have been identified are you able to provide a particular example where you see a problem arising just a general concern given past your conduct of the UK Government that you alluded to earlier? To two parts to Mr Bibby's question firstly I would make the general point and whether it's tremendously welcome or not as Mr Bibby is about to find out I am an extremely regular attender of the committee giving evidence to you convener and other members so there are regardless of what the formal evidence session is that I am giving evidence to the committee about the opportunity to ask me questions whether a committee or indeed a portfolio questions about any particular issues is a given and is on-going so I wouldn't fear about the ability to raise issues with me but I do take the point about how can we have the best formalised structure to update members on things in a fast-moving situation and I'm very, very alive to that both because of my governmental responsibility but in also thinking about how you as a committee are able to perform your responsibilities so if there are developments between any given evidence session or any programme reporting back on the Scottish Government's approach to EU alignment or retained EU law I am perfectly content to update the committee as I was with my letter yesterday to give context which can perhaps influence members' questions to be informed by the latest state of the play I mean we are literally dealing with a situation which is changing from week to week in relation to this matter which I'm sure hasn't escaped the notice so is there more that we can do to keep the committee updated I'm perfectly content that we will write to the committee to update it on the progress of things can I perhaps put on the record my appreciation to members of the House of Lords who have been working with both the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government on this and other issues but on this an extremely close working relationship we share one and others concerns and there have been a number of members of the House of Lords in particular from Scotland and Wales have been very active in raising both of the Government's concerns which I'm very grateful for to Mr Bibby's point is there more that we can do to keep the committee updated that is a very live and on-going issue and I'll continue to try and do my best to keep the committee informed and answer any questions in terms of the specific schedule of nine items is there a particular concern about a clause or a sub clause of the nine items that has related to devolved subjects as opposed to a general concern that these do have devolved impact I would be right in saying that it's a general concern at the stage because one really needs to work through all of these pieces of legislation and specific provisions I think we've passed the stage of does it have a devolved impact yes it does can we game through particular scenarios of what would happen if it were to fall off the statute book I think that's where civil service colleagues are at the stage of trying to work through to understand what mitigation might be required but I'm happy to update the committee when we get to the stage of understanding that so committee members also are aware of that concern thank you very much Mr McPherson thank you good morning cabinet secretary you spoke in the answer to Mr Bowie about engagement with members of the House of Lords and I just was wondering if you could give some indication of how much prior engagement you received from Lord Callaghan in advance of the statement that he made to the House of Lords and if he has offered time to engage with you as a Scottish minister to hear the concerns of the Scottish Government and what the UK Government has done to proactively propose intergovernmental engagement on these important matters particularly considering Lord Callaghan is well acquainted with the Scottish Government's opposition to Brexit and concerns about issues relating to Brexit so there is no comparison between the constructive working relationship that I and the Welsh council general McAntony have with a number of members of the House of Lords I think we've had from my memory three or four meetings through the process of the legislation through Westminster around around these issues perhaps three meetings around that I have not had a single meeting with the UK minister in the House of Lords and I think I I'm not sure if committee members are aware of the the quip from the Dispatch box sarcastic quip from the Dispatch box about the likely reaction of the Scottish Government something I paraphrase along the lines of well you would expect that wouldn't you was certainly not informed by any communication with me we haven't met to discuss any of this so as with so many other things where the UK Government is proceeding with legislation or policy that relates directly with devolved competence unfortunately the gulf between the rhetoric about co-operation working relations et cetera is delusory that's disappointing but sadly not surprising so there hasn't been any meaningful engagement or tokenistic engagement on these matters from UK ministers the UK Government in correspondence has suggested that it has changed its approach to retained EU law from the hard cliff edge for all legislation to a more limited schedule of legislation to be taken off the statute book and in written communication has said that it has done so in part because of the opposition of the devolved administrations to that approach and the suggestion is that there has been a magnanimous reflection on our persuasive interventions and this has in part led to a change in the UK policy I suspect that the impending defeat in the House of Lords was much more important to their consideration of this matter than listening to the arguments put by the Scottish or Welsh Government on the issue. My general impression in dealing with the UK Government which I do very regularly is that the involvement of the Scottish and Welsh Governments is tokenistic and a box ticking exercise to say that one has quotes consulted in terms of actually acting on the concerns that are raised, I see very little evidence of that and I think that the UK Government's U-turn on the rule bill in terms of the sunset provisions were entirely or nearly entirely down to the arithmetic in the House of Lords which would have seen them lose in votes on amendments that were placed or supported by members of the House of Lords with which we were co-operating with. I just asked one more question in community. Thanks, cabinet secretary. It's helpful to get your reflections on the lack of intergovernmental engagement sadly. Turning to the nine items on the schedule I appreciate your points again in answer to Mr Ruby about having more general concerns at this stage and still exploring the detail and if this is something you want to come back to then fully understand but the two instruments with regard to Transport, SI 2019 575 and 2017 352 I just wondered which relate to port services if considerations around the green free ports were at all related to those instruments. That is an area where I'll have to write back to the committee on the specifics of the analysis around the nine measures. I think it would be correct to say that the sponsor of the Scottish Government in relation to the schedule of legislative measures to be sunsetted as part of the reformed, retained EU law bill approach to the UK Government is on the basis more of does this pertain to devolved area of competence rather than any specific policy consideration as to its impact. So it's an understanding of is this a devolved area of import does it have a relevance to that yes or no Ergo this is something that the devolved Government should be playing to the UK Government that until we understand the impact of sunsetting legislation like that it's not something that should go ahead until there is proper governmental and no doubt parliamentary understanding of what that actually is to go into the nub of Mr McPherson's question and obviously I welcome Mr McPherson to the committee as well as Mr Bibby having said that I'm keen to make sure that committee is updated so I'll undertake to update on our best understanding of the nine specific measures and as they may pertain to any specific on-going policy or policy development in the case that Mr McPherson raises on green free ports Thank you I'm looking to see if there are any further questions from colleagues I think that might If I could ask a quick final question Cabinet Secretary so obviously the committee undertook some significant work on the original rule bill and two of our major concerns were around the impact on other organisations such as Animal Welfare organisations and those that were trying to navigate their way through the original setting and also the Scottish Parliament subject committees which will have significant interest in what's happening being able to engage in the process and while I note that you do see the removal of the sunsetting clause as a move in the right direction, do the timescales and the approach alleviate any of those pressures in your view on the impact on business and third sector organisations and the ability of the Scottish Parliament to engage in the scrutiny process As a question, it's a very good question to end on as a takeaway for myself and colleagues because given the new circumstances that we find ourselves in with the new approach of the legislation and intention of the UK Government in dealing with the retained EU law, we are in a different environment in terms of how we might be able to integrate the needs, interests, concerns and expectations of third sector and other organisations who have a particular policy locus and in parallel to that that goes very obviously for Scottish Parliamentary colleagues and specific committees and as a takeaway I think that's definitely something that I want to be satisfied as Cabinet Secretary with responsibility in this area that however we move forward after the expected passage of this legislation that we are able to do so in a way that organisation who do have an interest in particular policy areas and Mark Ruskell mentioned one of them earlier that we are able to share expertise and understanding around all of these things as we try to make sure that Scotland remains aligned with the legislation with the better standards and the values of the European Union which the Scottish Government and the majority of members of the Scottish Parliament still remain committed to. Thank you Cabinet Secretary and thank you to you and your officials for attendance today when I move into private session.