 Good morning, and a very warm welcome to the fourth meeting of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee in 2022. Our first agenda item is a decision on taking business in private. The committee are invited to agree to take item 4 in private. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much for that agreement. Our next agenda item is our inquiry into the Scottish Government's international work. The committee is conducting the inquiry, and this will be the fifth panel on this topic this morning. We will hear from James Hampson, director of the UK region external affairs at the British Council, and Professor Andrea Nolan, University Scotland's international committee convener. I welcome you both to the meeting this morning. We are going to thank you also for your very comprehensive briefings that you provided to the committee. We are going to move to questions. I wonder if you remind everyone that we have two panels this morning, so please try and keep contributions concise. That is for my committee members to ask in their questions. I could open with questions to Mr Hampson. It is on the education work as a former convener of the Education and Skills Committee in the previous session. I have a strong interest in this area. What I wanted to ask was about the schools engagement level and the work that you described in your paper. From the point of view that, when it comes to schools, it tends to be leadership at either local authority level or headteachers that drive forward some of those initiatives. I really wanted to get a feeling if all local authorities are engaging with the British Council in this work, or if there is a geographic element to who is engaging with the British Council on the schools exchange programmes and the projects that are on offer. Mr Hampson, thank you. Thank you very much. It is a great pleasure to be with the committee this morning. Thank you for receiving our evidence and giving me an opportunity to speak. Schools is an important part of what we do as an organisation. Obviously, what we try to do is build a bridge between Scotland and the rest of the world. I do not have the data that you are asking for, and it is not a great start for me to look at all local authorities. Perhaps I could follow-up in writing, because I have a huge amount in front of me in terms of examples of our education work, but I cannot give you a precise answer to the question on how many local authorities. If you could bear with me on that, I can get back to you just with the accurate data. That is absolutely fine. Thank you very much, Mr Hampson. I wonder if I could perhaps ask Professor Nolan a question. Again, from my previous experience, we very much valued the Erasmus programme in Scotland, and many of the witnesses have lamented the loss of that. I was just wondering if you could expand a little bit on what your names would be for an ideal new mobility scheme, and perhaps a little bit of your insight into what funding and back-up that might require? Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to come here. Obviously, we were disappointed to not be part of the Erasmus programme, particularly as it is about twice the size of the previous programme. At the moment, we have all had 17 of the 19 higher education institutions in Scotland have received funding from the Turing scheme. We are trying to make a success of that. The positive aspect of the Turing scheme is that it was initially one year, with funding of somewhere around £100 million—I have not quite got that right—and it has now been extended to three years. One of the challenges for us is that, if I have a student coming in to first year now, they might not be going abroad until their third year, so three years is a very short time in a higher education planning context. That is a challenge. Another positive issue is that a focus on shorter-term exchanges is a good thing, particularly for people who are caring responsibilities or people who may have jobs that they really need the income that they cannot afford to go away for a semester. There are positives that we could take from Turing. A real challenge is that lack of inward mobility. An ideal programme for us would have some of the features of Turing, i.e., that short-term mobility, but it would also have that ability for inward students coming in to our universities. It is an interesting one. I know that the Scottish Government is thinking about a student mobility scheme. Another piece of recent information is that the Welsh Government is setting up an international learning exchange programme, so it is trying to replicate Erasmus. We have committed around £9 million to £10 million for that. The Welsh sector is probably a student headcount, but it would be only half the size, maybe a bit less, than the Scottish sector. It is not an enormous amount of money in the context of the higher education budget, but it is a significant investment. We do not see any funding in it in the draft Scottish Government budget for next year, so the ideal one would have those reciprocal relationships. All of us are frantically trying to build them. My institution, Enver Napier, has reached out to 65 of our Erasmus partners to say that we have bilateral joint exchanges. I have got an agreement from about 40 per cent of them so far, but you can imagine what was a wonderfully organised, multifaceted scheme. Suddenly, we are all doing these bilaterals, so the ideal would have that broad-based scheme where you are doing bilaterals and you would have funding for inward band students. I am now going to move to questions from committee members. I thank Mr Golden to begin. I would like to ask the same question to both panellists, but perhaps start with Professor Nolan. I think that I touched on some aspects of this in the questioning from the convener. In both the University of Scotland and the British Council Scotland submissions, the importance of Scottish Government's yet unpublished international education strategy has been highlighted. What are your main asks for inclusion in this strategy and what support commitments from the Scottish Government would you like to see in it? Me? I am glad that you raised that earlier on, because we are very excited about the international education strategy. I know that we have spoken to Scottish Government officials on many occasions about that. We have offered our vast evidence base from across the university sector of priority markets for us of how student recruitment works and where our big research partnership is. I suppose that a key ask is that we get one and get one quickly and tie us all, commit us all to a set of targets that will deliver a real impact for Scotland. We would like to see a set of key priority markets and territories. I have some priority markets for student recruitment. It would be others for international research, but we would like to set in that context of Scottish Government's international ambitions, particularly targets around international student recruitment, but also about how we attract and retain talent. That is a huge challenge, because the Scottish higher education sector is so well regarded internationally. It is a very competitive market for talent, so we would like to see a scheme around how we could attract and retain talent. We would like to see connections between Scottish Government departments and where trade would connect with the learning directorates, so that we are coherent in how far and direct investment and how we trade is not really in the higher education directorate or the education directorate, but clearly synergy and cohesion is really, really important. We would like to see a commitment to the growth of online, how we can support the growth of online students and transnational students, which tends often to be forgotten, so we think of international student recruitment and research. However, for example, my institution teaches 4,000 students overseas with partners where we are awarding Edinburgh Napier degrees. They are fantastic partnerships. We have been doing it for 25 or 30 years. We have wonderful alumni who are all passionate about Scotland and about Edinburgh Napier University. There are some of the elements that I would like to see in a strategy. It does not have to be complicated. Just getting one out to unite us behind what we want Scotland to be in terms of international education is really important. We are an investor or a contributor to what Scotland is now. Something that has come up is how we market Scottish education and look at how we could do this in a shared manner with an appropriate digital platform. That would make an enormous difference to Scotland as a distinct brand in the education sphere. Sorry, I have gone on a little bit. Not at all. That was very interesting, Professor Nolan. Just a quick supplementary. You mentioned about key target territories for recruitment. Do you have a broad idea of where those might be? I can tell you where most of our international students are. I mean, big recruitment markets for Scotland are China and the United States. If we now include EU countries where we want to keep our links, Germany would be a big one. For my institution, Nigeria, Malaysia and Hong Kong used to be, but there are different areas. Some of the Scottish Government's focus might be in a different place to where my individual institution is, but with a set of priority markets underpinned by good digital branding, marketing and awareness, we all benefit. That was very interesting. I will move on to James Amson now, if you could highlight what you would like to see from the Scottish Government's international education strategy. Thank you for the question. Professor Nolan has covered some of it. From our perspective, we have just published a report on Scotland's higher education assets. I think that our research points to the education system is the jewel in the crown, so I think that it is making the most of that mobility. Certainly when we were talking to our colleagues in Europe, beyond the EU as well, there is a real appetite for engagement and mobility between markets that are important to Scotland and that are important to us, which includes the EU, but we look at the whole world as well. Those two things are really understanding that Scotland has this incredible asset that shapes the way that people perceive Scotland that has an enormous soft power that helps with trade and that you have a really strong plan around mobility. Of course, where we can help, looking at the whole of the UK as we do as an organisation, is on how that marketing works on the ground. I have seen that when I have worked in Egypt, I have seen it when I have worked in Pakistan, where the Scottish Government is investing in the Scottish Scholarships programme, which we deliver for them. If we can bring those things together, added to what Professor Nolan has said, Scotland will be heading in a good direction. I think that you wanted to come in on the first question about the local authorities from the chat. I did. It is 32. So they are all engaging? Yes, basically. I am a third of all schools and 32 local authorities. My team has just come to my interview. That is very helpful. I will now move to questions from Ms Boyack, please. Thanks very much, convener. It was very good to read both the submissions that were received. Can I ask my first question to Professor Nolan, please? It is really to follow up the point that you made about a replacement to Erasmus going forward, given the importance of it academically in Scotland. I was just looking at the new Welsh scheme. You said that it was about £9 million. The launch this week said that it was a £65 million international exchange scheme that they have just launched, with 15,000 participants from Wales going overseas and 10,000 coming to study our work in Wales. A Scottish equivalent would be significantly more students. They have also targeted non-proditional backgrounds to improve learning opportunities for people with additional learning needs, which I thought looked quite progressive. Can you say a bit about what you would be looking for in terms of a future Erasmus approach, whether it is something along the Tath approach, or what would suit us in Scotland, given that it is academic and the cultural exchanges are good in terms of our overall soft power, but I am presuming that it is also significant in terms of the economy of how our colleges and universities operate. International mobility is one of those things that used to be quoted—I do not know if that is the case anymore—that employers, if they saw someone who had gone abroad for a semester or a year abroad, would have been a real persuader to bringing them into the firm. It is really about the motivation and the challenges that people have to overcome to go to another country. They may have to study in another language. They may have to develop the language before they go. I and all my colleagues across the Government are a passionate believer in the benefits of that. The aspect about the Turing that I really thought was wonderful was the short-term ability. In Napier, we have students who have been on study trips for even two weeks or three weeks. We have had people who have gone to parts of Africa and various countries and Europe. They come back and talk about life-changing experiences. I think that short-term exchanges that you did not have with Erasmus are hugely beneficial, because 40 to 45 per cent of my students in Napier are mature students, so they cannot necessarily just go up and go for a year or for a semester. A focus, as you have said, with the Welsh and apologies about the finance. I think that maybe I am talking on a yearly basis, but the benefits—the focus on people from MD20 more socially deprived backgrounds—should be well funded. When you are funding them, you need to fund them properly. Combining short-term exchanges with a progressive approach is truly—I would love to see that as a feature—carried through, and less of the focus on people having to do a year abroad. I suppose that they would be the main elements for me, the improvements that I saw in Turing, but also continuing that support for inward students. Something that I sometimes noted at Edinburgh Napier and did previously, when I was at Glasgow, was that the Europeans, the Erasmus students, or the students who came and studied abroad, were the ones leading societies for a year, or they really enriched the culture and the experiences of our Scottish domiciled and home students. A strong push for me on the progressive approach targeted, because we know that students from socially economically deprived backgrounds—even when they have their degrees, they do not have that social capital that others might have, as they progress to further study or into graduate-level jobs. Those points are well made. Presumably from the academic side as well, in terms of lecturers and research and strengthening international relationships and exchanges, they are very beneficial for our further and higher education systems as well. That is a very good point. I did not mention that, of course, Erasmus is open to staff as well to move and to be mobile. While we have research screens, we hope that, if the association to Erasmus goes through, it will support the mobility of researchers. Absolutely, the Erasmus scheme funded staff exchanges, which were often the prelude to building deep partnerships for further student exchange but also research partnerships. I move the same area of questioning on to James Hampson from the British Council. To follow up that exchange with Professor Nolan about that, in your report, you talked about Scotland's soft power and that, in research, we were first in the categories of education, enterprise and digital, and second in the cultural category. I was wondering, Mr Hampson, what more do you think we need to be doing to capture those benefits and going forward what opportunities you think need to be developed, both for exchange opportunities and linking into that, not just further and higher education but at a school level as well? Start with a really short response. We believe in more outward mobility and in more mobility, not less so. The advent of all schemes, whether it is the Scottish scheme in the future and the Welsh programme as well as Turing, are great things. You are right to point to the research. Cultural relations and soft power can build attractiveness and influence, and it also builds trust. We know that people out there in the world are twice as likely to trade, do business with the whole of the UK or invest if they have had a strong cultural relations experience. I use cultural relations as a bit of a catch-all term to describe the word that the council does in arts and education and in the English language. There are benefits generated economically in terms of perception and in terms of reputation and influence. To point back to the comment that I made earlier, Scotland has the stool in the crown of higher education but also in its arts and its creative sector, which has a world-class reputation not only as an exporter of brilliance but also as a destination particularly around the summer months and we are looking forward to getting back on the streets of Edinburgh this year as well. I think that making the most of your hub network as well, that is really important. Our experience of having a global network is that being there on the ground, developing relationships, developing insight, developing influence over the choices that young people and their parents make for their future. We want as an organisation young people to come and study in the UK. We want young people to take a UK qualification and we very much want young people to see the UK and, in this case, obviously to see Scotland as a place that they can connect their values to but also think about investing in it as well. It is really about making the most of the government hubs and we have made an offer to the Scottish Government around how we might work more closely together. My new chief exec met with Angus Robertson in September and that is something that we really want to do. There is a huge demand in Europe through our colleagues and our officers there for continued engagement with Scotland and around mobility for arts education institutions, working with policy makers and connecting Scotland to those markets, which we know are important to you as well. It is about making the most of what you already have, thinking about what value for money looks like, what are the KPIs that you are going to put in, what is a good outcome for Scotland for its investment and really thinking about the potential of the Government hubs and how you connect with organisations like mine and how you work with the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office to make sure that we are all working for the whole of the UK. A commitment, I would add, that we take it incredibly seriously. What would be the top change or top additional initiative that would help to deliver that? Having a unifying strategy that brings not only education and arts together but having one international strategy and I know that work is under way on that, but how you unify and bring it all together is really important. That will be the arrowhead through which everything else is delivered. Do you do that as an urgent priority from your perspective? I think so, because it is certainly the case that Scotland has a huge amount of presence and positive reputation in the world, so it is a great place to start from. I mean, we are 29 scene reporters, you know, really put Scotland up there, and so I think it is building on that and making the most of what you already have. Okay, thanks very much, thanks, convener. Thanks, convener. Can I just stay with James Hampson then on that topic of the hubs? I wonder if you could give us some practical examples of how British Council works with the existing hub network and also what your thoughts are on the expansion of the Scottish Government's hub network. We had some information from the Cabinet Secretary a couple of weeks ago indicating that the Copenhagen hub is already being developed as a director being appointed at the moment for that. What would you see the opportunities being with that hub and perhaps the Warsaw hub in the future as well? We have worked closely with the hubs, particularly in Europe and elsewhere. One of the great examples that we can point to is our work with Creative Scotland and we are going to be launching our arts assets report, which is the companion piece to the higher education work that we have done. It will be an analysis of the distinct aspects of Scottish arts and the culture sector that are different from the rest of the UK and that really helps Scotland stand out in the crowd. It is about telling the story, so I think that is a live example that we can work with you on. On Copenhagen and Warsaw, back to the other answer that I gave around mobility, on connecting policy makers and how Scotland is able to be attractive and influential in that space. There is also the broader question of Pakistan, China and India and how you connect there. The world outside of the EU is an important part of how we see things. That is the question about what does the Scottish Government investment look like beyond the EU and into those much bigger markets in the Indo-Pacific. Indo-Pacific is a big priority for British Council. It was a stand-out feature of the integrated review that was published by the UK Government last year. I would be thinking beyond Europe and also into how we really maximise our impact. Where you already have a presence and reputation in Pakistan, that would be where I would be thinking going into the future. Right. Practically, what would the British Council be doing in relation to Copenhagen? Where do you see the opportunities? Is it about creative sector screen? Is it what? We have a Nordics cluster ourselves because we no longer have an office in Copenhagen, but for that part of Europe it would be about education and arts, connecting education and arts institutions. It would be about looking at the exchange of policy makers. Scotland has a great track record of exporting its success in assessment and access to the university sector, which Professor Nolan will learn more about. Copenhagen is a challenging one for us because we are no longer present on the ground, so it is a great opportunity to work together and think about what we could do together in that territory. We are operating digitally and remotely, so we have taken some decisions recently about thinking about our presence differently. We are working on a hub and spoke model in some parts of Europe as well. In Warsaw, we have a big fixed presence. It is one of our oldest operations in Poland. Our commitment as an organisation to working for the whole of the UK means that when that is up and running, our director in Warsaw and your director in there too can work together in thinking about what that looks like. Our focus, of course, is on arts, education and the English language. What does that mean and what does that look like and how do we benefit and how do we measure it for Scotland working together on the ground? Reading your submission, you focus quite a lot on soft power. When it is being described by some commentators that you differently have pat Canes scribes a notion of fizzy power, it seems to be quite a fluid concept. There are obviously tangible benefits there. How does that get pinned down? Do you think that Governments should be saying that there are some clear metrics and clear objectives about how we measure soft power and how we account for that? Or not? Is it something a bit more like a wellbeing indicator? If we are talking about building relationships and trust, I am obviously very valuable but it is not GDP, is it? Where do we incorporate that in terms of Government thinking and objectives and how do we measure it? I think that we have been able to think and demonstrate that the return on investment in soft power can generate economic benefit as well as reputational benefit as well as the influence that it all gives you. The short answer is we should, not least because we are spending taxpayers money in our case. We think that you can do this in a number of ways. We run a perception survey every year across 20,000 people across the G20 that looks at their engagement and their understanding and their attractiveness towards the UK as a whole. We do not yet have the Scotland Cup but we are going too soon and I will be able to share that with the committee every year. We have seen that you are more likely to trade, as I said before, with the UK, if you have had a cultural relations soft power experience with the UK, which is a great thing to be able to do. We then have a number of partnerships across the world. We measure business outcomes. For example, in our UK and Japan season, we showed that for each pound invested in that season, a further £8 was generated for arts organisations across the UK. Of course, there are partnerships that are built as a result of it. In the case of the UK career season in 2017-18 and Indonesia, we were able to build partnerships that sustain themselves going forward. There are a number of things that you can do. How do you build trust? What does trust mean as a result of your soft power intervention in terms of trade, partnerships, perception and, crucially, influence? It was worth bearing in mind why the council found that it was part of the effort to face down clashes in the 1930s. Influence remains still an important part of who we are and what we do. I hope that that is helpful. Professor Nolan, you mentioned, earlier, about horizon Europe and some of the delays in potentially getting associate membership to that. Can you talk a little bit about what those delays are, how those have manifested styles and what your hopes are for a resolution to that? There is a blockage. UK Government said that we would associate with horizon Europe, which the whole of the Scottish across the UK and the Scottish sector was absolutely delighted. It is a £95.5 billion research programme over the period to 2027. However, there is currently a blockage and that blockage sits at the commission. It appears to be linked to the Northern Ireland protocol and it is being resolved. The horizon Europe bids opened in early 2021. Scotland, in the first tranche, has won four of the very prestigious European Research Council bids, two of those at the University of Edinburgh and two at the University of Glasgow. However, it cannot access the money or funding because we are not officially associated, so it cannot sign grant agreements. At some point last year, the UK Government at the end of the year agreed to underwrite and provide the funding for the successful applicants to the horizon Europe who were unable to sign grant agreements. I think that most of us thought that it was just a slow process, but now being linked to the Northern Ireland protocol, we believe that this is potentially very damaging. The next big round of applications is around March, June or awards this year. We would be pushing UK Government, are you going to underwrite those? The UK Government will know much more about the progression of the politics around the Northern Ireland protocol, but, meanwhile, you can imagine that this is really high up our academic researchers' worry list. Are you going to invest so much time in developing that grant application keeping going with it, if you are not sure if you are going to get the underwriting funding? I think that it is the potential where the impasse is damaging, not just the UK research and the Scottish research but also the EU research, because we are highly valued partners in the EU research ecosystem. We are very anxious about lost opportunities, about potential damage to partnerships and are desperate to get that resolved, but at the moment, as I say, we are at an impasse. Thank you very much, Mr Ruskell. I invite Dr Allan to ask us questions. Fesis, most recently you mentioned the Northern Ireland protocol. Alasdair, could you restart? Sorry, we missed the start of that. Professor Nolan, you have just been talking about some of the stresses that the academic sector has faced in coping with events such as post-Brexit and, most recently, you mentioned the Northern Ireland protocol. Can you give us a picture of how much academic time or university time is being devoted to trying to resolve some of those problems and how universities cope with that and how they work together to overcome it? Is that essentially trying to recreate things that used to exist or find new opportunities? I probably will underestimate, because if I go back to the Erasmus situation, my university, which is a mid-size in Scotland, has written to 65 partners to work out how we will do international credit transfer and student mobility. We are following up, and that is one university out of 19. That will be replicated across and people spend significant time in that type of activity. In terms of the research, we do not have an ability to influence the resolution of the Northern Ireland protocol individually. We work with Universities UK, which is an umbrella organisation and membership for all the universities in the UK. They have an international unit that liases closely with the UK Government and also liases with UK research and innovation—the big funding UK research funding body—to highlight the difficulties, put pressure on trying to get a guarantee that the next round of EU applications, if successful, would be funded. They work closely with relevant UK Government departments, and we channel most of our work and effort through them. As an individual institution, I would have very little sway. Huge amounts of energy around mobility. We are all doing our own thing, hiring staff. That is at EU staff from the EU. However, for the big horizon Europe issue, the impasse, we are channeling our efforts through mostly the UK and also wherever we can with MSPs and MPs. Thank you. You also raised another subject. You talked about online learning and the opportunities that exist around that. I am sure that there are opportunities. There is also the aim, obviously, that you mentioned, of attracting people to Scotland. Are there any tensions between those two things? Are there any potential threats around that? Is it something that you are confident that you can manage a new landscape? Many of us do not quite know what the new landscape of online learning looks like, so perhaps you could say a bit about that. Yes, I do not see any tensions in terms of online learning somehow in competition with students wanting to come to Scotland. Higher education is just growing massively around the world and the demand for those knowledge-based economies. Covid has helped us all to understand the potential of online learning. In Edinburgh and Napier, we started to do some online learning maybe about six or seven years ago, and every year we recruit more and more students because there are students who cannot—again, they might be caring, they might be mature—who cannot come here. However, there is a massive demand for Scotland and for UK students to come and to study and live here. The post-study work visa has made that very attractive. We have seen on-going—despite the Covid pandemic, we have seen on-going increases in my institution, I think, virtually all across Scotland of students wanting to come, study in Scotland, have an experience here, live here and work here for a couple of years and then take those experiences back. I just see opportunity abounding. When there have been difficulties, for example, some of the students who wished to join us last month in January could not get here because of maybe visa offices being shut because of Covid in their country. We were able to facilitate their early learning by engaging them with online activities, but that has not stopped them wanting to come. They are still coming, they are still booking their flights because they want that experience of being in another country. I just see oodles of opportunity for Scotland and hence my excitement. I hope that this year we get the international education strategy out there that says that this is where we are going, that these are our priorities and that we get that real Government support behind us all. Mr Hampson related to that last point that Professor Nolan made, but also related to the point that you made about how you unify international strategy and international policy. One of the traditional ways of doing that is through diplomacy. You touched on Scotland's offices abroad and how do cultural organisations get the most out of those offices and should we have more of them? On the last question, of course, more of the better. Within the rounds of what is affordable, our view is that by working with the Scottish Government and Creative Scotland on the Arts Asset Report, we are able to help Scotland to tell the world its story. We would obviously encourage and want to work with as many parts of the Scottish machine, whether that is Government, whether that is within the sector itself. We have this incredible relationship that we have been in Scotland since the 1940s. We opened our office in Edinburgh in the 1940s. We helped to find the Edinburgh International Festival as well. We have deep roots, of course, as we do right across the UK. The idea that we can help Scotland to grow its international profile and presence is something that is completely aligned to who we are, and I would be having the same conversation with the Welsh Government in Cardiff, the exec in Belfast and, of course, our colleagues in London as well. Diplomacy manifests itself in different ways. It is about playing to strengths here, and I think that Scotland is really clear on what it is good at, where strengths lie, culture and education, and how that connects to trade is a great place to be starting with. More presence, more profile, more people out there in the world and building partnerships with organisations like mine is the way to go. There is a long list of things that we do that we would have put in the evidence. We are an organisation that is entirely committed to making this work. Thank you. Dr Allan, has that finished with questions? Yes, thank you, convener. Thank you very much. I can invite Ms Minto, please. Thank you, convener, and thank you, panel. This has been very informative. I am reflecting on what you are saying from an education, a culture and a design perspective. The work that you do is reflecting Scotland and Scotland to the world, but also the world to Scotland. I am interested, Mr Hanson. I was having a look at some of the international collaborations that you have done, for example, Dundee Rep and the Scottish Dance Theatre with Cities in India and the US, and then Egg with Newfoundland. I am just interested to hear how those projects turned out and how they are developing. One-off projects, how do they expand and how do they lengthen their lives with your support? Thank you very much. I am pleased that you are pleased to see that it is great to hear. Part of the success is having a brilliant team in Scotland that I have the pleasure of line-managing—Direct Scotland and her team—that are plugged in in two ways, one into our entire global network. We operate all over the world. We connect with 745 million people a year. We are a big, big organisation that has presence in a lot of places, making sure that my organisation understands what it means to truly work for the whole of the UK. I am the guardian of that promise, corporately. Secondly, we are making sure that we are plugged in to what is happening in Scotland through Creative Scotland but also through the various partnerships that we have that manifest themselves in Venice, in the International Culture Summit and bringing those things together in a way that has meaning. We believe that what we do is a process. It is a bit like democracy. It is not an event. It takes time to nurture and it takes time to pay off. The specifics of the projects that you asked for, I would love to be able to write to you and tell you how those are turned out. We operate within a big global programme framework. The British Council does English, we do arts, we do education right across the world and everything sits in there. So I would be happy to write and say, here is how we got on with those projects. It is really about intelligence and insight on the ground in all the parts of the world that we work in and how that fits with the aspirations of our Scottish partners of Creative Scotland, of the Scottish Government, as well as bringing those together and doing it in a way that has meaning and helps to change people's lives. We are in the optimism business. That is an important thing for us all to hold on to. We are at the end of the spectrum and it is really important that we help people to realise their ambitions and aspirations. In a previous life, I worked with the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra and they did a tour to China and part of that was working with the British Council to provide education to children in China and it was brilliant. I think that projects like that really add to Scotland's opportunity to approach different organisations in the world. If you have a project, what is the plan at the end of the project? How is that expanded? How do you keep the connections? Do you have a continuing relationship? To your last comment and your next question, scaling it and measuring it are two incredibly important things. The third bit of that is giving it sustainability. We do not have all the money in the world that we would like to have, which means that what we are trying to do is help those partnerships to stand on their feet. We do long-term tracking in terms of outcome and how those relationships are working. The short sign of success is that those things stand on their own two feet and that we are able to measure what that meant for the people who were involved, the systems that sit around them and maybe, depending on the scale of it, what that meant in terms of reputation for the UK, reputation for the organisations and the influence that it has and the longevity that it has. Can you measure economically? Was there a trade benefit, for example? Not everything gets measured purely through the trade lens because some things you cannot. In the case of China, for example, our seasons and partnerships are really clear benefits back to UK organisations. The one-in-eight ratio for Japan is an important part of saying that this is good value for money and that it has a much bigger impact in terms of society and reputation. Ultimately, the soft power impact that many of us think is an incredibly important part of how nations conduct themselves in the world. I reflect positively on that. Last week, I attended the celebrations of Indian independence. A large element of that was the cultural side and how Scotland and India have relationships. It is an incredibly important part of that. With India and Pakistan, you have these very vibrant, large diaspora that are hugely influential in British public life. I met the governor of Punjab when I was in Pakistan, who is a former MP in Scotland. Those links matter. They matter a great deal. They matter because it is also just how the UK shows itself to the world and how the UK is with itself as well. I think that we are all in the business of believing that that is really important. Professor Nolan, I would like to follow on from some of the questions that my colleague Dr Allan was asking about distance learning as a result of the pandemic. How do we work with the practical side of education? For example, in my constituency, there are SAMs. SAMs do an awful lot of work about biodiversity, climate change and such. They were explaining to me the impact of the drop of EU students. I suppose that my questions twofold the practical side of studies, how we are managing to continue that and how we can encourage, as you said earlier, enriching the experience of students from Europe and the Scottish homegrown students in our institutions, given the recent leaving of the EU. In regard to the practical side of the pandemic, we have a lot of practical-based subjects. When the pandemic hit, almost all universities were coming to the end of their second trimester or term, whatever way, and we were going into exam time. That was helpful in ensuring that students had the right practicals done by then. The really tough time was the lockdown in the second lockdown in January to March time 2021. However, we were allowed at the time with Scottish Government if it was essential for students to do some practical work or go into the university. If they did not do that, they could not progress in their year or they could not graduate. We could do that, and we did that very safely and securely. We did graduate our students. That was a very challenging time. However, the staff were enormously creative, particularly in our design, TV, radio and journalism. They were very creative in how they developed the skills of the students that would normally have been done in the lecture theatre. I had heard them talking up our hills behind Craig Locker and doing things because we were able to do them outdoors. It was not ideal, but it is truly remarkable, I think, and a testament to the staff that we graduated virtually all our students. That is not to say that it was not very difficult for many of our students and for our staff, but we did so. If we did not have a pandemic, if you look at online learning, students know what they are coming to do. A lot of online learning, for example, we think that online programmes are about business studies, where you do not need a practical basis and public health. If I join an online course electively, I know what I am getting. Also, with the development of virtual reality and augmented reality, online learning is becoming pretty amazing. In terms of enriching, we saw last year that there must have been 60 per cent this year, 60 per cent drop—certainly in my institution, across the board, there were maybe 50, 50 to 60 to 70 per cent drops in EU students coming. What can I say? I feel really sad about that, and I suspect that the drop will continue. As I mentioned earlier, there is still a tremendous demand and growth in demand for international students from around the world to come here. I hope that the Scottish Government gave us some funding—it was about £2.5 million this year—for scholarships for EU students to soften, to try and keep encouraging them to come. One of the key issues around scholarship funding is that we need very good notice, because if someone is joining me next September, they will be thinking about it in January, so you need to really have the scholarships in place, but hopefully that will happen in the future and hopefully Scottish Government will commit. If we have our international education strategy, and it is clear that those are the areas that we want to target and that is why, and we join that up across departments, then there will be more coherence and we will be able to align ourselves as appropriate to that. What can I say, but I am sad about the decline in EU students? They now would be paying international fees, whereas previously, they were not tuition was free to them and the Scottish public was funding them. Great. Okay, thank you for that, Professor Nolan. Thank you, convener. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel for a fascinating evidence session. Could I ask one question to each of you and then, if there is time, a round-up question? First, Professor Nolan, to ask you about the balance between Europe and the rest of the world. You spoke about one of the benefits of the Turing scheme being short-term placements. If it is also right that another benefit of the Turing scheme is that it is global, and whether you had any observations on the balance between the EU, where we have long-standing academic relationships, but also what could be done more widely across the world? I think that it is a very interesting question. Do I have an answer for what the balance should be? No, I do not. I think that because we were so well integrated with the EU, and we developed partnerships over so many years, academics knew each other through research, and it was easy to move around. The loss of that feels enormous. We have always had maybe 50 per cent of our students, exchange students, coming from other countries. We have a lot of study abroad students from the USA. Some universities have massive numbers coming to Scotland because of the links between Scotland and the USA and Canada, and they will continue. They are all done on bilateral exchange agreements, which really does increase the work and the effort. If I want to start a new relationship or an exchange relationship with a university in maybe Indonesia, that takes a lot of time and effort. I do not have a structure in place like I used to have with Erasmus. I may have my own agreement, but it might not work in an Indonesian context. There is real opportunity to expand, but with my staffing base, I cannot go into every country around the world and develop a bilateral, which is why, again, if we could have a Scottish Government set of targets of where we are going to put our effort, that would be enormously helpful to me. It is a good point about the balance, a very good point. What is right? It has certainly made mobility easy for Scottish students and for them to go out with the European framework. We were all signed up to that. It has certainly made it easier for us to administer it. Thank you for that. I turn to the British Council and Mr Hampson. One of the issues for this committee is how the Scottish Government's international efforts interact with what the UK Government is doing, given the constitutional responsibilities that you will be well aware of. Have you had any views on what the British Council does? You represent the UK as a region, as well as Scotland within that. Have you had any views on how your work is seen through that particular prism? We know, for instance, that several hubs—not all the Scottish Government hubs, but several of them—are co-located within UK embassies. I would be interested to hear about how that works in practice. For the council and the foreign office. We are an NDPB of the foreign common development office, arms length body. We are an operationally independent organisation, but are aligned with what all four Governments of the UK are trying to achieve in the world. Of course, our closest relationship is with SEDO ministers, because that is where the lion's share of our money comes from. On the ground, it works brilliantly. My experience in working in big missions in Pakistan and in Egypt, as well as in four years in Cairo, is that the council and the embassy are aligned on making sure that there is one big UK story. For us, of course, we are representing the whole of the UK, and we do not have ministers. We are able to align ourselves in very practical terms and relatively straightforward terms with what the UK is trying to achieve through the country planning process. The SEDO has its planning processes and how we all align with those and how we connect into those. That takes some doing and that is just two systems talking to each other. However, we have been doing this for 85 years, working closely with the Foreign Office overseas. Where the UK presents itself and sets out the whole waterfront is where we become most attractive, where we become most influential, where we have a brilliant development operation, a trade mission, culture and education, and it is what our competitors are doing. I wanted to add that soft power is a very competitive space. There is a competition for influence on the choices that young people and their parents and policy makers make. We do not quite know how much China spends, but we think that it is in the region of about $10 billion a year to the growth in their expansion. Our EU friends and the Americans are all in it, so that is competitive. It is about all of us saying what is the thing that we can do best in soft power, in culture and education, and particularly with the culture and education being devolved and the brilliant manifestation of everything that Scotland has to offer. How do we make sure that we work together to deliver a really good outcome that maintains our reputation and delivers influence? A lot of other actors are active in this space. I have one general question, but I see that the time is already one minute past 10, so I am happy to hold it. I think that we will put a few more minutes if you want to ask it, Donald. That is fine. Thank you so much. There has been a lot of discussion about, in the best-case scenario, what could be done by both your organisations. Obviously, as we all accept, resources are limited to both Government resources and your resources. I suppose that I am asking for a shopping list of your top three ambitions for the next few years as quickly as you could, but what would they be? I appreciate that you have put detailed submissions, and it is a bit glim of me to attempt this, but if you could perhaps start with you, Mr Hampson. Networks, collaboration and mobility. Professor Nolan? I did not say through my evidence that we value the British Council offices enormously when we work internationally. I wanted to make that clear that we work all the time. First and foremost, it is that direction from the Scottish Government through the education strategy, targets and clarity. The second thing is that behind that is some investment. We are not talking masses, we are talking small amounts around scholarships, mobility schemes and a real push on the branding of Scotland, on the marketing of who we are as a study destination, what we offer and what is distinctive about it. I am sorry to put you on the spot at the end, but that is a really useful way to finish. I have a couple of final questions as well, different ones, if I could go firstly to Professor Nolan. It is something that you touched on, Professor Nolan. It was the idea that what Turing is missing is what I think is both sides of the same coin in the inward mobility of the exchange programme with students. I just wondered if you could comment on how you would like to see the future. Just to explain to us why it is so important that it is a two-way street in terms of students and lecturers or other researchers having that opportunity to exchange in both directions. For good partnerships that are going to be sustained and become more multifaceted, they have got to be mutually beneficial. If one university thinks that I am taking all those students from Edinburgh and Apia, it is wonderful to have them, but why can't my students have the opportunity to go to Edinburgh and experience the university, the city? I think that a feature of partnership development is mutual. What will we both get out of this? It will be interesting to see with Erasmus over the next two or three years how inward flows of students change. The pandemic has muddied the water, but are they going to go to our French students or to America? Or not America, but are they going to go to maybe some of the Scandinavian countries? How will that impact our classrooms? We had healthy in-band numbers of European EU students, and they really make a difference to our classrooms to the students that they mix with. Features of that scheme in mutual or reciprocality, whatever the word is, are really important for developing the partnership and for adding on other things for developing research relationships. It is the same with staff. We benefit so much when staff come and spend some time with us. We learn about their ways of teaching, their approaches to research, their approaches to assessment, whatever. I do not think that it can just be a one-way street. To repeat again, the aspect of Turing that I really thought was progressive was that target on more disadvantaged students but also the shorter term ability. Early on in my career, I would have thought that surely four weeks would not make a difference, but it actually does. Two weeks can make a difference. I have had nursing students caring that have gone away for two weeks to another country, and it has literally transformed their lives. Reciprocity and that short-term and targeted scheme would be enormously beneficial for Scottish students and staff. I have a question to Mr Hanson, which touches on my first question. At a time when things have been changing so much in our relationships, it is interesting to probe some of the weaknesses that we had previously. This is no way of diminishing from the absolute success that the Edinburgh festival is and the summer festivals in Edinburgh, but we also have other festivals in Scotland, the Witton Book Festival at one end of the country. I am thinking specifically of the St Magnus festival in Orkney, and I am just wondering how you see us being able to take advantage at the moment of perhaps the Nordic relationships in the Copenhagen office in actually building the status of the other festivals across wider Scotland, so that we are not always thinking of the summer festivals being Edinburgh going forward. That is a great challenge. Can I absolutely and entirely back up and support what Professor Nolan said about mutually beneficial relationships? You build the trust that I have been talking about and all the benefits that come from it if you do that and you do it well. I have talked a lot about the whole of the UK, so to your point, the whole of Scotland. I think that that is a really good challenge for us. Are we representing the whole of Scotland in our arts work? I would like to think that our brilliant arts team do. Certainly, the Celtic Connections, for example—but, again, that is Glasgow, is it not, really? I think that what I do not have in front of me is a brilliant answer to a really good question, or even a good answer to your question. We do know that there is work that has gone on between Shetland arts and a programme in Texas, for example, but that is not really to the point that you made around the Nordics. Can I undertake to write and say that this is what has happened in a bit more detail? Maybe those are some of the things that are in the pipeline. I do see from my notes that there is some work between the workroom in Glasgow and the Nordics. So, again, Nordics on the radar, but maybe not quite in terms of the geography that you pinpointed in Scotland. We will write to you on that, if that is okay, and we will also set that in detail in the proper response to your answer, because it is a great challenge, you know, the whole of the UK, but it has got to be the whole of Scotland, too. That is great. Thank you very much. Thank you both for your attendance at committee this morning. It has been immensely helpful to the committee. Again, thank you for your submissions, which, again, we are very helpful to. I am going to suspend the committee until 10.15. We will return then for our session with the cabinet secretary. Welcome back to our committee this morning. Our next agenda item is agenda item 3. It is a final session or an inquiry into the Scottish Government's international work. We are joined by Angus Robertson MSP, cabinet secretary for the constitution, external affairs and culture Scottish Government, John Primrose, deputy director of international relations Scottish Government and a change to the panel due to technical reasons. We are welcoming Neil Watt, head of European engagement at the Scottish Government. I welcome you all to the meeting and cabinet secretary, thank you for being with us and can invite you to make an opening statement. Thank you very much convener and delightful to be. I am losing track of how many times I have been with you recently. I think that this is my fifth or sixth evidence session with you. I am delighted to be back and happy to answer the committee's questions. First, I wanted to take the opportunity to make a few remarks about events this week, not least because of what they may mean to the powers and the role of your committee. On Monday, the UK Government published its, as it called it, benefits of Brexit document to mark the second anniversary of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. As a political distraction from events at number 10, clearly it failed. No surprise, it failed. The simple truth of the matter is that there is a profound absence of Brexit benefits, whereas the disbenefits are all too evident. New polling this week has shown that 75 per cent of people in Scotland have a negative opinion about whether the UK has benefited from Brexit and only 2 per cent of people in Scotland believe that Boris Johnson has delivered a good Brexit deal. Clearly, for people in Scotland, the proclaimed benefits of iconic blue passports and crown markings on pint glasses is, frankly, small beer that does nothing to redress the significant step backwards that Brexit has had on our trading position within the European Union and the wider benefits of EU membership. The paper celebrates an ambitious export strategy, but the truth is that Scotland's total trade with the EU fell by 24 per cent in the year to September 21 compared to 2019. For example, Scotland can no longer export the 20,000 to 30,000 tonnes of seed potatoes that we used to sell to the EU and Northern Ireland. The paper boasts of securing trading deals, but even the UK Government's research shows that there is little or no economic benefit from the new agreements that have been signed. The paper boasts of highly resilient food supply chains, with no acknowledgement of the significant labour shortages that have been experienced across sectors, especially in rural Scotland. The paper celebrates taking back control of our waters, neglecting to mention that the total UK fish exports first four months of 2021 were 27 per cent lower in the same period in 2018, and because of new UK immigration rules, an average of 25 per cent of vacancies are unfilled throughout the seafood industry. The paper trumpets new initiatives to tackle criminal activity, but the reality is that, post Brexit, we are now outside key policing tools like the Schengen information system, the European arrest warrant, and that makes things much harder for Police Scotland to combat criminality and for prosecutors to bring people to justice in Scotland. The paper claims that it will cut £1 billion of red tape, ignoring that UK Government officials estimate that British companies trading with Europe will have to fill in extra 215 million customs declarations at a cost of a whopping £7 billion a year. It also ignores that cutting red tape usually simply means undermining environmental standards, undermining workers' rights, undermining quality standards, badden itself and a sure way to trigger significant further disputes with the European Union under the trade and co-operation agreement. The UK Government promised that the UK's shared prosperity fund would, at a minimum, match the size of EU structural funds in each nation each year, but current spending plans fall far short of replacing EU funds. The reality is that the levelling up, as it has put, announced yesterday for Scotland means losing out. That is not all, but I will not talk for much longer, although there is very little good news, but we need to find out the bad. Just to be absolutely clear, we are not taking evidence on the proposals in this bill. Today, we are very much focused on the international offices and our inquiry into how that works. Although I appreciate that there is an overlap in those areas, you could concentrate on our inquiry into the operation of the international offices. They are very much appreciated. Absolutely understood, convener, and I was just entering my peroration. It impacts on the work of the offices and on the work of the Scottish Government. It will impact on the work of the committee. It is unacceptable for us that the UK Government seems ready to unveil sweeping measures that will have such profound consequences on Scotland, on the Government, on the Parliament, on your committee with such little discussion or respect for the Parliament and for the Government. The manner in which we are informed about the document makes a mockery of the UK Government's recent commitment to reset relationships with the devolved Governments. I am going to move straight to questions from the committee, and I invite Dr Allan to begin. Thank you, convener. I am not sure whether you can see and hear me. You can hear me with this too. Thank you, cabinet secretary. We have heard evidence from the last panel, I do not know whether you have heard it, about the benefit that our offices internationally have. I think that we have quite an interest in having more of them. I can open by asking what the ambitions are for countries to benefit from a Scottish presence around the world. Thank you very much, Dr Allan. It is fantastic that there appears to be general agreement and general enthusiasm for the excellent job that Scotland's international offices do. They attract investment, they broaden our horizons, they create domestic opportunities and benefit people in Scotland, and they do so at a marginal cost in the context of the Scottish Government budget. Between 0.01 and 0.02 per cent of the Scottish Government's overall portfolio spending plans goes towards our existing eight international offices. The funding going forward that is allocated in the Scottish budget includes the funds for the opening of our office in Copenhagen this year, which offers us huge opportunities for developing our links with the entire Nordic and Baltic region. Those are near northern European neighbours and that is going forward. Within this Parliament, we are committed to opening an office in Warsaw, serving central Europe. Again, a region that matters enormously for us and not just in trade and the likes of education and cultural exchange, but also because we have so many people who live in Scotland originally from that part of the world and that makes perfect sense. I think that there is an interesting discussion to be had about where does the network develop at the next stage, given that there seems to be so much encouragement for the network to be as successful as it can be. I can definitely look at parts of the world where we are not currently represented with a Scottish Government office. We do, of course, see Scottish representation through Scottish Trade International and that is right around the world. The question is where might we look next? Is it capitals where there is a strong bilateral connection, a strong cultural connection? Some cities have got a very strong multilateral diplomatic and third sector presence. All of that, those factors will go into the thinking of where might we expand after Copenhagen and after Warsaw? One of the other things that we heard in the last panel was about how there is an opportunity now to draw together, if you like, a policy and activity in different strands of the Government's works. For instance, that would be cultural activity, it would be economic development, it would be education. In thinking about the future and where future offices might be, does that factor in your thinking on how offices could draw together different strands of Government activity and perhaps look at what the universities are saying about where they would like to see further activity? For those of you in the committee who have had the good fortune to visit Scotland House in Brussels, you will be aware that there has been a long history of co-operation between different Scottish organisations that have a locus, in this case, in a European context. In the past, there was representation from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, for example, as well as the Scottish Government, as well as the Scottish Parliament and so on. I think that there is more that can be done in terms of co-ordination. That already takes place between Scotland House and other Scottish agencies that are currently represented on the ground. There is a very high level of co-operation between people who are answered to Scottish Enterprise internationally on the ground. You make the point about other strands of work that can be undertaken as part of an enlarged network, and that is absolutely true. That is something that we will look at, but you might also say that that could be the case for places that we already have a presence. To take, for example, Paris, where there is a very successful Scottish Government representation. It is also a capital city, not just for France, but it is home for the United Nations Agency UNESCO, which is in charge of education and culture, both devolved areas. It seems to me that there are areas where we can be broadening and deepening the work that we do in places that we are already represented, but we can also be looking at places that we are not yet, but should be looking at in the future. I would want to signal to the committee that I am really interested to hear your views on where you think that we should be looking next. Our network is very comparable with other devolved parts of the world. One wants to look at Quebec or Flanders or German Lender, for example. We are at a very comparative size, but those other places are increasing their networks often. We know the benefit that we have been gaining. I know that you have taken evidence from colleagues who are in charge of Scotland House operations in a number of capitals. Those are extremely talented people. I wish to put on record my appreciation for all the work that they do and that their staff do, but it definitely makes me think that we need to grab every opportunity with both hands to make sure that Scotland is represented as widely as we can make that happen so that we can enjoy the benefits that such representation brings. If I can turn to another area, but also under your responsibilities, although you have a new minister responsible for it, Neil Gray, international development, there is a lot of reciprocity in the relationship that exists between Scotland and the countries that we work in most famously Malawi, but also in other countries, not least in Zambia. I wonder if you can say a bit about what is changing, because there has obviously been a review of our international development policy. There has been a keenness on the part of government to challenge our own assumptions about how international development is done. There has been talk about removing the white gaze, if you like, from the way we do international development. Can you say a bit about what is changing so that we can understand it as a committee? The first thing that I would like to say is that travel restrictions have not meant that I or colleagues have been able to travel to speak to people on the ground in our partner countries, but I have had the benefit of meeting with diplomats from our partner countries during my most recent visit to London in Scotland House, the excellent representative office that we have there. I know that, speaking to the diplomats from our African partner countries, the tremendous appreciation that there is for the work that Scotland plays in international development terms. You are right to point out that there has been a review to make sure that what we are able to deliver on the ground is frankly what people in those countries are looking for, rather than perhaps priorities made in northern Europe, as we might think of them being important for our friends and colleagues elsewhere in the world. On the reorientation of our principles of international development in the review, there are four changes that I can highlight to you, one of which is to build back fair and stronger. That is an evolution of our funding, so how we structure, restructure our current funding streams. Number one, number two, a global south programme panel that was announced in our programme for government. We have established a panel of experts by experience who principally work and reside in the global south. That is the point that I was trying to make about making sure that we are having that key input from people in the countries that we are working with, led at a ministerial level, to help us to ensure that global south voices are being properly heard. Third, we are updating our funding criteria to make sure that we are delivering what we want to deliver and have the impact that we want to have in our partner countries. Focusing our offers the fourth, which is to ensure that our international development offer is focused on the best matches that are needed and the asks from the partner countries that we are working in. Those are the four key areas that I would highlight to the committee. I thank Mr Golden, please. Cabinet Secretary, we received a written submission from Oxfam, which states that Scotland's credibility on climate justice is now in significant jeopardy due to it missing three successive annual emissions targets. I appreciate that the delivery of climate targets is not in your portfolio directly, but is that having an impact on Scotland's international effort? Well, nice to see you, Mr Golden, and you are amazing. The clock is still in its place, telling me where I am in terms of the timing of my evidence session. I spent a lot of time at the recent climate change talks in Glasgow, where I spoke with colleagues from around the world. Scotland is held in extremely high regard because of what we are achieving. I hope not in a preachy way to the rest of the world, but we are very fortunate that we have won on the natural resources lottery twice, once with oil. We are now pivoting away from hydrocarbons as we know we must. We are an extremely fortunate country to have a very disproportionate amount of renewables potential. We are trying to make the most of it. I do not think that this is a part of political issue. I think that all of us know that we need to grab this opportunity with both hands. In that area, we have a lot that we can help and share with countries who are trying themselves to do their best, as we all are, to deal with a climate emergency. When speaking for example with the Malawians and speaking to the Malawian president who was here, he was here in Edinburgh in an event that I was speaking at, we are exceptionally keen to work with the Scottish Government so that we can share best practice and any learnings that we have to share with them. Just as importantly, what can we learn from our partner countries? It is not a win. We do not know everything and we do not have the answers to everything and there will be things that we can learn as well. I think that it is right that we need to do everything to make sure that we are reaching the targets that we set ourselves, but we are setting amongst the highest targets in the world and most other countries in the world are significantly behind where we are. We still hold a leadership role and responsibility to make sure that we are continuing to do everything that we can on the renewables front, but to work with our partner countries is one of the great prizes that we should be focusing on in our international development priorities going forward. Thank you cabinet secretary. We have heard lots of evidence about the positive nature of the Scottish Government's work internationally, but taking on your answer to my earlier question, have you considered a thematic approach to complement the geographic approach that we are currently pursuing in order to get more bang for the buck, if you like, looking at renewables or water? It is more than a thought and it is absolutely right. That is what we are doing. One of the areas where we are focusing our efforts relates to women and girls, which I think is going to be a very important factor. That is a thematic approach, yes, and there can and there should be others. I will signal to John Primrose, who I know is on the call and has a great deal of experience in this area, to come in at the end of my comment here to underline this point. We are taking a thematic approach, but we shouldn't be high bound by that, because we can do a number of things at the same time, hopefully. Although the women and girls strand is very important for us moving forward, I think that there are others that will also be a key priority. If we are amongst the world's leading countries when it comes to renewables and coming to that climate ambition, that could and should also be one of our key approaches for our work going forward. John, is there anything that you want to add to what I have just said? Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, and thank you also for the question with regard to thematic versus partnership countries. Geographically speaking, which I think is partly where this question is coming from, it is right on the international development side that we are pretty focused in the three steps that are in African countries where we are investing. Given the size of the budget portfolio, just to give a bit of a scale on that, it looks likely that by the end of our Parliament we will be spending about £25 million, £26 million, primarily in those three partner countries. That is a really meaningful amount of money and a meaningful area for engagement, but it wouldn't be if we diversified across multiple areas. That said, within that, it is absolutely right and proper that we are specialising thematically and leaning into the extensive skill sets that already exist within Scotland to ensure that we are maximising the benefits for our partnership countries. For example, cabinet secretary referred to renewables as a key area of partnership that we can do, and also on the climate justice side. I also say health and add that very much to that area. We have got an excellent NHS global citizenship programme that has done extensive partnerships with Malawi and now also with Zambia. There is a range of areas where Scotland is excellent and that we can partner extensively with international developing countries. We are thinking about the policy beams that were outlined in the global review that was outlined last March to Parliament. It is essentially to answer the question very much about the remaining focus geographic area, but also about accelerating and increasing the level of leadership that we can provide globally at the policy level on those individual themes. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Back to you, convener. Thanks, convener. A couple of quick questions from me, cabinet secretary, for yourself and your officials. The first one is about the international relations drawn up in 2013 at a very different world. Is there been discussions about revising that? Are you talking about the international framework of the Scottish Government? The international relations in the UK, which presumably governs the way that the different nations in the UK and the UK Government work together, imagine that, on international relations? On a general point, there has been, as you know, a refresh on inter-government relations, which was announced only a few weeks ago involving the UK Government and the devolved administrations in the UK. You rightly point out that there was agreement after the onset of devolution, which underscores the opportunities that devolved administration, the Scottish Government included, can pursue on the international stage, which is exactly what we do. We focus largely on the areas of devolved responsibility that we have to maximise our opportunities internationally. Do we need to specifically revisit that agreement? That is not a subject that I am currently involved in, to be frank. If I want to call it this, the medium term would be much better for us to not have any form of restriction on Scotland's ability when it comes to European and international policy whatsoever. I look forward to that being secured during this parliamentary term. In the meantime, we will do everything that we can to make the most of the opportunities that we have. You may well be aware that most of our Scotland House operations are currently co-located within UK embassies. There is a very high degree of co-operation and collegiality. I very much welcome that. I know that our colleagues in the Scotland House networks value that. I hope that colleagues in the Foreign Office value that. In answer to your question, we should always keep our formal relationships under review. My last thought on all of this would be that I do not lay the greatest store on these formal arrangements because we have had them up until now within the devolved settlement. Frankly, they have not worked tremendously well because there has not been a willingness to let them work very well. The first thing is that one needs to be minded to work positively with one another. The good news is that, on the ground, internationally, I think that that happens already. However, if there are any specific observations or suggestions about the arrangements that were entered into after devolution, I am happy to take a look at that. There is no real desire to look formally at that concordat or MOU, and it is very much being led by practice on the ground, and that appears to be working. Is that a fair summary, or is there any move to revisit formally what those responsibilities and relationships look like? I am currently not looking at any update or changes to the current arrangements. As things presently stand, we have a network of international offices. We have excellent people working around the world, both in the Scottish Government network but then on our economic partners answering to Scottish Enterprise working on the ground. We are managing to do what it is that we set out to do, should and when Scotland's constitutional status change, then most certainly we are going to have to look at the network and the ending of their restrictions in terms of what they can do. I very much look forward to that, because normal countries are able to develop their international relations in an unrestricted way. I do not think that that is the scope of this morning's evidence session, but no doubt we will be coming back to that in the course of this Parliament as the Scottish Government's prospectus towards the independence referendum is published. I am sure that we certainly will. In terms of the Scottish Government's international framework, when will that be reviewed and updated? That was my initial query with you, Mr Ruskell, on the updated international framework. That is extremely current. It has been worked on and you will be aware that this has been both a manifesto and a programme for government commitment. We will be publishing the new global affairs framework this financial year, so within the next months. It aims, it sets out the Scottish Government's engagement internationally, the values that underpin that engagement, and it demonstrates our wish to be a good global citizen. We have an important role to play in demonstrating high international standards, and we will continue to support our internationalisation agenda to influence the world around us on the issues that matter most. That is the probably the furthest extent that I can go to in giving a sneak peek on what will be coming out shortly, but it will be coming out shortly. That is good to hear. Final question. We took evidence a couple of weeks ago from the Scotland Malawi partnership, and I think that there was some considerable concern around the pulling of the Malawi small grant scheme. I think that there were concerns that the scheme had been evaluated against objectives that were incorrectly written, and the full benefit of the scheme as it was operating was not properly evaluated and was not properly reviewed. I recognise that that is quite a granular issue to hit you with this morning, but I am wondering if you are aware of those concerns and what commitment you might be able to give to ensure that they are properly addressed. I am fully aware of the issue that you raised, and I will again signal to John Primrose that he might want to join at the end of my comments in relation to that. Everybody appreciates that all schemes that involve us dispensing taxpayers' money are subject to review, and that is a common practice. We need to ensure that we are actually delivering against the aims that are set for particular projects or funding streams. The evaluation came to the view that it had not delivered against all of the criteria that the Scottish Government wished to deliver on the ground having the impact that we want to see. That is why, as we review and move forward with the projects that we support, my previous ministerial colleague, Jenny Gilruth, updated the Scottish Parliament on the thematic approach to women and girls that we are now focusing on. We are going to continue to dispense small grant funds, but it is not going to be working in the same way as has been up until now, because it has been an evaluation, and the recommendation is that we should do things differently. The feedback that we have had from partner countries has been positive. I will share with you one that the Government in Malawi has requested that Scotland finance fewer larger programmes that would help them to track progress and manage alignment with their aims. We are trying our best to work with our partners on the ground, making sure that the projects that we are supporting work best with them, but also work in line with the strictures that we put on them. John, do you want to come in on that? In essence, we want to make sure that what we are committed to is working. If it is not working in the way that we intended it to work, we have to pivot and make sure that we are delivering in the way that we want them to deliver and with our partners in our partner countries. John, is that a fair assessment? Absolutely, cabinet secretary, but if the committee is allowing me, I am prepared to give a bit more detail underneath that, just to go ahead with it. As cabinet secretary said, the objectives of the project at the outset, just to explain in a little bit more detail, as advocated by SNP and what was then the alliance, were that it is important to allow very small organisations in Scotland to provide them capability support so that they can then start accessing much larger grants. That was one of the critical raisons of the programme. We evaluated it and found that there was only one organisation of 80 grants that was able to actually graduate to that larger area. It is absolutely right to say that it did not fulfil the objectives of which we set out at the outset. I would also say that there were a few other issues with it. For example, we had anticipated much larger demand for the grants than there was. We anticipated 150 grants going out, but in the end, there were 80. There is evidence out there that the review took into account on the additionality of having much smaller projects versus larger projects. The evidence globally, from an aided impact perspective, is that it does not create more innovation or impact when you have a range of much smaller projects versus larger projects. There is not positive evidence for that. Obviously, there is a transaction cost issue. On the basis of value for money and an external review that was done in collaboration with the SNP and other organisations, we have taken that decision. I would say that, just to add additional to that, as Minister Goh Ruth, our former minister, said, we still remain incredibly committed to supporting civil society within the global south. The three areas of concentration for the small grants programme, which were in health, education and economic development, will continue to support our partner countries and, in fact, increase the finance associated with it. I should also say that Scotland's civil society and global citizenship overall within Scotland remain a critical focus for our programme. We will continue to support, as we already do, Scotland's civil society through a range of means, including our support to the Alliance and the SNP. We have a difference of opinion based on the evidence that we have seen with the SNP, but I would be keen for that, not to be seen in any way, to us disinvesting from the key priorities that our partner countries have, or, indeed, our engagement on global citizenship in Scotland. It is a key role for small organisations, small initiatives to be established, and they have the potential to grow into bigger initiatives that could attract more funding. I am interested to know whether you can write to the committee or whatever about how you will continue to support the growth of grass-roots initiatives, which seem to attract such a huge amount of voluntary support and engagement across Scotland and in Malawi, and have the potential to grow into bigger programmes over time. However, I will hand you back to the convener just now. It has been an interesting discussion of the day, and I am definitely interested in the issues about sharing knowledge and expertise. It was interesting that the cabinet secretary talked about how we could share our knowledge and expertise on renewables. However, of course, there is a learning from other countries as well. I was thinking as he was speaking that Denmark, in particular, for like two thirds of its homes are heated by heat networks, and I think three-fifths of that is by biomass and not by fossil fuels. It has to be a two-way process. Can I shift us on to the issue of what happens post-Brexit? Cabinet Secretary, you kicked off your comments to us today by talking about the shift two years on from Brexit. That was an issue that came up with quite a few of our witnesses. There were comments from two witnesses, in particular Dr Kirsty Hughes and Anthony Salamone, who felt that we needed a better post-Brexit engagement approach and a better set of priorities. I was wondering what the cabinet secretary's comments would be on that. Is there a new international development strategy to come, particularly in the light of the comments that you made at the start about reduced trade relations with our neighbours in Europe? On interrelationships post-Brexit, I have spent a considerable amount of my time, as Jenny Gilruth and Neil Gray have already hit the ground running as her successor, in terms of our on-going and continuing relationship with European partners. Whether that is at a European institutional level or on a bilateral level, we have a very high-tempo level of engagement to try and make sure that we are still plugged into the thinking of European partners. That obviously matters very directly. It is a very current issue to maintain, for example, what is going on with the Northern Ireland protocol. We need to be fully cited on what is happening with all of that, not least because, under the current situation, we are set to have a border post constructed in Scotland as a result of the UK Government's agreement with the European Union. We know that the UK Government is resiling from its own agreement. The news in the last 24 hours from Northern Ireland is extremely fast-moving, and we probably do not have time to go into working out what that means, but we have had a Northern Ireland minister refusing to see border control posts operating. That is in direct contravention to the international agreement signed by the United Kingdom Government. Since then, we have had the announcement that the First Minister in Northern Ireland is resigning. Today is a day when it is extremely dramatic, but it matters to us. It relates directly with issues in and around Brexit and how we are supposed to be emerging beyond Brexit. It illustrates why it is so important for us to have continuing and deep and trusting relations with our interlocutors, and we are doing that. Are we going to do more of that? Yes, we have to have the best possible relations that we can. I know that you have had a particular interest in the workings of the Scottish representative Opposites. That is one of the things that they are able to do. They are able to nurture and further the relations that we have in Brussels, for example, but then in other European capitals. At which point I segue on to Sarah Boyack's other point that she was mentioning, what we can be learning from other places, and the point about Copenhagen in Denmark is extremely well made. There are different things that we are probably best able to learn from different countries. She highlighted environmental policy in Denmark, and I agree with her whole-heartedly. I think that there is so much that we can learn from our Nordic neighbours in that respect, but also in the cultural space. As I have mentioned to the committee before, I think that there is a lot that we can be learning from Denmark and neighbouring countries about what they have been able to do in screen production and broadcasting. Many of us on the committee are acknowledged fans of Scandi Noir and have been watching amazing television series that have come out from DR, the Danish Public Broadcaster. I am very keen to learn what they have been able to do so successfully there. I have covered two of the bases. I do not know whether Ms Boyack wants to come back to me if there is something else that I missed. First, on the European relations and making sure that we have the best possible direct connections with people and secondly, what it is that we can be learning then in other capitals. Yes, absolutely. In a way, I wanted to flag the Danish issue because I know with the Copenhagen Office that that is an opportunity and we have to seize it with both hands. However, to go back to my opening question about articulating a post-Brexit strategy, I hope that you will get your point that things change day by day, but there is also something about those relationships and the points that Mark Ruskell made about international relations in terms of Concorda across the UK and, of course, with our partner countries in the European Union. It was really the point that was made by previous witnesses about the need for a clear post-Brexit strategy and to articulate how that links the hubs that you have abroad and the extent to which you have a way of increasing the transparency of how the hubs work. Obviously, we are not wanting to know absolutely everything because there has to be a degree of give and take, but something in terms of key priorities and then the thematic approach, maybe you have talked about that in terms of international development, but in European terms as well, what our priorities are. Suggestion from some witnesses is that we should be very tight, but of course also everybody is suggesting the issues that they are interested in. We have had educational, cultural links today. You have mentioned that you can only develop in the trade. You have climate change. What is the strategy and what will be the objectives under those headings? How do you like that to the hubs? I am happy to share with you any specific questions that you have on this because I know that time is short for this evidence session this morning, but the work and the priorities of the hubs are not intransparent. The priorities that they have set is something that is subject to assessment. We have five key outcomes against which the external network reports. It is on, first, Scotland's international reputation and improving it. Second, Scottish businesses and their ability to trade internationally and more effectively. That Scottish research and innovation capability is promoted and further partnership and funding is secured. Fourthly, that investment to Scotland is increased. Fifth, that Scotland's interests in the European Union and beyond are protected and enhanced. Those are the key headline objectives that the network works to. There will be nuance in different capitals because of the different priorities that we have in different places. For example, it is very easy to see that, for example, in Germany, we are pursuing closer and enhanced relations, especially with German lender, in relation to renewable energy and hydrogen, because that really makes sense there. We have gone through the advantages of the Danish-based office, but you can go through the others. One is working to those higher goals and then there will be specific areas of focus. It is great that you heard directly from colleagues who are running Scotland houses internationally. I am delighted that you are able to ask them what they do. That is transparency in action. I am sure that you will wish to invite them back. I speak to those colleagues extremely regularly. They are keen to be able to say what they do and how they do it. I encourage you to do that, to learn more about what they do. They are, by and large, really quite small operations by diplomatic standards, but we have some extremely talented people who are out there batting for Scotland. They are doing a great job. I think that the more we can hear about what it is that they do and the advantages that they bring, should enthuse and encourage everybody. We will pick that up. Did you have any comments on the post-Brexit strategy? Obviously, I am moving the agenda, but what would be the Scottish Government articulate that, or is there a briefing that we can circulate to address the issues that are made by witnesses? Obviously, one is talking about a fast-evolving situation. We are moving with the situation as quickly as it moves. We do not have an end-state at the moment. We were supposed to have international agreements and the basis of a new relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, but we are not there yet. We are still at a place where the United Kingdom is threatening to invoke article 16, and the problems that that would then bring for all of us in terms of a worsening relationship with the European Union. I would highlight two levels in which we are interacting with European colleagues. One of which is in relation to Brexit and its on-going and unresolved issues, which we talked to people about. Secondly, it is those areas in which we have kind of emerged beyond the immediate wreckage of the Brexit process. For example, on education, we know that what has been transpiring with the Erasmus scheme, for example, we know that its UK replacement is inadequate when measured against it. Nevertheless, we still want to make sure that we have the best possible relations with other European countries in this case education, which is why I was speaking with the German federal minister, who has responsibility for that, because we want to make sure that we have the best possible relations. Or when I spoke a few weeks ago with the French culture minister, talking about how we can move beyond the problems of Brexit that has caused for both Scottish and French artists, and how it has made it much more difficult for them to tour and perform. We are working on two levels. One, how do we deal with the immediate issues, but two, how do we move beyond them? That is exactly what we are doing. Some things are moving very quickly, and we have to deal with the fast-moving circumstances, but on the other, we are doing exactly that, which you pointed out, which is working out where the different areas where we can move beyond the immediate Brexit transition issues to try and firm up and, in some respects, ameliorate the damage that Brexit has caused. Just to say, it is very worth checking out the discussion that we had in the first panel about the educational connectivity and the new Welsh scheme that was announced this week. Interesting licence for us to look at. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary has already spoken about the time, but if we could be mindful of that going forward, we are two final members to come in and invite Ms Minto first. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Your answer to Ms Boyack preempted one of my questions, which was about the evolving and developing situation in Northern Ireland. The impact on Scotland. However, we took evidence from David McAllister, MEP, about the fact that Scotland can pursue a different and more informal engagement with the EU. The first time you came to the committee, I asked you about the connections that you were making from the softer side of connections through culture, education, design and Scandi Noir. I would be interested to hear a wee bit more about that, if possible. You commented a bit on the wider diaspora and learning from the situation in Flanders or perhaps Quebec, how they engage on the world stage. I have rolled a few questions into one there. I am going to get myself into all kinds of trouble with the convener because I could happily talk about those areas for a long time. On the diaspora point, I have a locus on this because I also have responsibility in relation to the population challenge that we are facing. I do not know how widely aware people are of the fact that we are heading back into the territory of relative decline in population terms, which is very concerning for us. That is the background to the perennial challenge-stroke opportunity that we have. We are one of those nations in the world that has a very significant diaspora. The question then is how do we best discover, maintain and develop the relationship with that diaspora? In the past, people just thought that that is largely the people who left Scotland and went to the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so on, but there are other forms of diaspora as well. For example, there are literally tens of thousands of people who have studied in Scotland and then gone back to the countries that they came from originally. They are a former Scottish diaspora as well. They are aspirational Scots. We need to find imaginative ways of striking a continual relationship with those people and making the most out of that. We have lessons to learn from other countries. Some were mentioned, I would add Ireland very closely to that, the Irish of a great experience of fostering a relationship with their diaspora. I think that there is more to come on that. I will be happy to come back to the committee when there is more that I can say about that, but it is definitely something that we are thinking about and we are working out how we can move all that forward. In terms of the softer areas as it was put in relation to the likes of culture and education, it is relatively simple for me because I am Cabinet Secretary for External Affairs and Culture, so I can do both at the same time. What we always need to keep an eye on are the areas of Scottish Government policy that also have that kind of interaction. Education was mentioned and I know that that is definitely something that Shirley-Anne Somerville has extremely focused on. We do talk about it and another area that we have not really got into is justice because we are in the unfortunate position that we have through Brexit lost our place in a great many judicial co-operation functions. That is the bad news. The good news, if you can call it that, is that Scottish Government is working very well across directorates, across areas of expertise. We had a recent deep dive, as it is called, in the jargon that was hosted by colleagues in Scotland, House and Brussels. Another example of the value that the network brings of colleagues who work there and are working in this field. We are able to brief my cabinet secretary, colleague Keith Brown, justice officials, my own directorate and others. That is a concrete illustration of how we are moving beyond Brexit, if we can call it that, understanding the downsides, there are very few upsides, as I pointed out in my initial statement. What is it that we are going to do about it? There are some things that we can find work around for, but the honest truth is that there are many things that we cannot do. We need to be honest with people out there that Brexit has been extremely damaging, and yes, on trade, but also on education, on culture, on justice and in other areas as well. We are going to have an opportunity during this parliamentary turn to put that right and chart our course for rejoining the European Union as an independent member state. That will go a long way to repairing the damage that Brexit has wrought on us. I thank you for that, cabinet secretary. I have two broad areas of questions. The first is about where the Scottish Government's international presence is at the moment in terms of hubs. Plainly, there is a kind of predominance towards the EU and notwithstanding differences of opinion about Brexit, about Scotland's constitutional future, et cetera. Resources are limited. Do you think that we are in the right place at the moment in the context of not being in parts of the world such as Asia, South America or Africa? If there is to be a refocus or an expansion, what are the criteria to decide where Scotland goes? What are the precise criteria? You mentioned the diaspora, you mentioned cultural links. I would just like to pin that down, if possible. Thank you very much, Mr Cameron. I concur with the underlying sentiment of the question that is about the attractiveness of expanding the network. I have not heard anybody suggest that where we are currently located is the wrong place to be far from it. I think that the cities that we are in, the countries that we are in, are absolutely places that we need to be. The question then is where next. I think that the decisions that were made and those precede my time in office that we should be looking to Copenhagen and then to Warsaw make significant sense, but you are also right to ask where next. You could say that, given the importance of the Asian subcontinent countries that we have close cultural and historic connections with, you might point to Pakistan and India, you might highlight the importance of Japan as a trading partner, you might pass a comment about Australasia as a part of the world where we have strong and historic connections and currently still do in trade and tourism. You would be right to say, where is the presence in Africa and when that happens, and I am sure that it will. Where would we be best suited to doing that? We do, of course, have partner countries there, so is it physically in one of those, or are there regional capitals where there is a multilateral presence as well? There are a number of factors that come into play in making any assessment of where next. Obviously, I take a different view to you on the scope, ultimately, of the best network that Scotland could have. I have no difficulty in saying that I look forward to Scotland being represented on all of the continents of the world. Even the biggest states in the world have limits to their international networks, so there is a process to be worked through about where next. As I signalled to Dr Alasdair Allan, I am very happy to hear the views of the committee, of members of the committee, of where they think it is that we should be looking next. I do not think that there is a monopoly of common sense in this, but I am content where we are. I think that where we are going next makes perfect sense, and I look forward to the network being expanded even further, and I am delighted to see that there seems to be cross-party agreement on that in the committee as well. Thank you for that. I think that it is very easy to build up a wish list of places and different reasons. What are the criteria? Are they economic? Are they cultural? Are they diaspora-related? I am not entirely sure that we know exactly what the factors are to be taken into account if there is a refocus of some sort, but I am content to leave it there and move on to the next set of questions. One of the issues that the committee is looking at in this inquiry is how the Scottish Government effort internationally works with the UK diplomatic effort. You spoke at the start about co-location of hubs within embassies in some parts of the world. Are there any other practical examples of that interaction? Your officials may be able to give some. I was struck by, on social media, the Canadian High Commission in the UK promoting an event held by the Quebec office in London. Is that the sort of thing that is happening in UK embassies abroad in terms of Scottish Government efforts? Are there any examples of the Scottish Government international hubs working with anything that other devolved nations are doing, such as Wales and Northern Ireland? Are there any practical examples of that co-operation or co-ordination? I could really talk at great length about all of this. I do not think that we are going to be able to do this justice, especially given what the convener was saying about the pithy answers. In speaking with colleagues in our current network, I am always struck by why we are involved in this initiative or that event. Obviously, this is taken with the Covid restrictions in mind, having limited the ability to do a lot of conventional outreach work, the kind of soft diplomatic work that takes place. It has been interesting to, for example, I was speaking in the last week with a new Welsh representative in Brussels about what it is that they are hoping to achieve for the Welsh Government, and me saying to them that they should please feel free to work as closely as possible with our colleagues on the ground. I would hope very much that there is a professional relationship with the UK mission to the European Union. Neil Gray, in the last week, was speaking with the British ambassador to the European Union in Brussels. I can go on and on about where things work well. I can point to other things where there is room to grow. I do not want to embarrass them, so I will not even mention the continent, but a British embassy in a significantly sized country talking with pride about hosting their first ever burn supper, which makes me wonder why, in the last 200 years, they have not been able to host one up until now. It shows that there are ways in which we can help to influence the UK diplomatic network to make more of the opportunities to promote Scottish culture and Scotland in the general sense. There is an opportunity to work well together. I hear lots of examples of that being the case, and in all constitutional eventualities I look forward to that continuing to be the case. I would draw attention to the fact that, when talking about co-location, there are some really good examples of that working well. The Nordic nations share an embassy in Berlin, and I think that I am right in saying that the United Kingdom and Germany share an embassy in Reykjavik. There are all kinds of ways in which we can work with one another in terms of international networks. Being imaginative and supportive of one another would be a fairly good thing. My final question is about measuring success. I think that the committee has tried to grapple with that inquiry in terms of what are the metrics that we use to measure success here, given that public money is being expended. I just wondered if you had any concrete thoughts about how we measure success in terms of what we are doing, how we get value for money, etc. I am going to read this, because I think that this is quite important. Offices use a range of both qualitative and quantitative indicators to measure their performance. Evaluation reports for the international offices in 2019-20 have been published under FOI, as has the evaluation report for Scotland House Brussels in 2018-19. There is both an evaluation process, which is continuous and on-going, to ensure that the work that is undertaken by the Scottish offices is measurable. Secondly, it is transparent, and it is available to the public. I think that it is good that people are aware of that. One is aware of the five key outcomes that we ask of the network, the fact that there is an evaluation process and the fact that it is publicly available. In addition to that, I think that it is really helpful—this is where the committee has performed an important function—by being able to see the people who are out there doing the job. I know that you had colleagues from Scotland House in London, in Brussels and Berlin. No doubt you will speak to others going forward in the future. Just being able to hear from them about what it is that they do, how they do it and the thing that I find tremendously encouraging is when you meet not just the people who run the representative offices that we have but the other members of the team. I spent an afternoon last week speaking via Teams call to the staff of Scotland House in Brussels, an amazing international polyglot enthusiastic staff complement there. They are there working every single day to promote Scotland across the peace, and I think that we should be very grateful for what they do. I have probably now 20 minutes past 11. I know that I am getting to the end of my time, so I will abuse the position by again saying a big thank you to everybody who does their best to try and promote all of our interests, our economy, our culture, our education and all of that. They are doing a great job and long may that continue. Thank you very much. That concludes consideration of this agenda item. I would like to thank the cabinet secretary and remind him that we are not expecting the committee next week, which everybody is relieved about. I thank him and his officials for their attendance this morning. The committee will now consider its work programme in private, and I will close this part of the meeting and ask members to log on to Microsoft Teams for our next agenda item.