Chamber and committees

I am sorry to interrupt. I absolutely get that, and you have made it clear that certain brownfield sites would not otherwise be developed. I accept that point, but it is difficult to make it without being aware of the wider environment. I will again quote a figure that I dug out a couple of years ago: the estimated loss to UK gross domestic product because of money laundering is conservatively estimated to be £262 billion every year, and the National Crime Agency says that the figure could be £100 billion more.

To my mind, we should be very concerned about that, so my question goes beyond the general principles, which, frankly, are not working. What specific discussions have you had with the UK Government to establish how it will counter tax avoidance and tax evasion? Clear warnings from the European Union in 2018 led to the EU issuing a commentary and taking further action on freeports. What recent discussions have you had?

To be fair, I recognise the challenges that the Government faces in the wider environment, and I look forward to hearing calls for greatly increased devolution in order to avoid such challenges in the future.

I consider Ross Greer’s comments to be valid. Minister, you talked about maintaining parity. I took from that that you knowingly accept the considerable potential for tax avoidance that should feed into all of our bottom lines. Am I correct in that assessment?

I have indicated some of my concerns about the use of green freeports for money laundering and other nefarious activities. I will support the motion, with the proviso that I will look for a strenuous querying of the UK Government over its pretty appalling record in stopping money laundering. I recognise, yet again, the constraints within which the Scottish Government must operate. That is a function of devolution.

This year at the Royal Highland Show, an industry-led strategy that aims for a 25 per cent increase in turnover for Scotland’s food and drink sector by 2028 was published. As an aside, I must mention that it was published on the seventh anniversary of the vote to leave the EU.

It is not the first time that the food and drink sector in Scotland has partnered an SNP Government. Although the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition did some encouraging work, it was the national food and drink policy that was created in conjunction with the industry and led by Richard Lochhead in 2008 that set out the ambition of making the industry worth £13 billion to the Scottish economy by 2013. For many years, food and drink was our fastest-growing sector, with an emphasis on ambition, innovation and a drive to promote the quality of brand Scotland.

That partnership helped to create a feel-good factor and an attitude that the sector was important, and that Government was listening and that it valued the industry. The rapid and visible success was at first celebrated and then viewed with just a hint of jealousy from down south.

The ever-rising tide of brand Scotland, in which the banner of the saltire was carried on our Scottish-grown and manufactured products, gave confidence and led to a huge growth in the numbers of small artisan producers and the diversification of farms. Their products were seized by consumers accessing them through the growing number of farmers markets and farm shops, and then they were seized by the ultimate marketing machines: the supermarkets.

I remember the days when the likes of Tesco had huge saltires painted on the outside of their walls and pictures of real farmers smiling into the camera hanging up in their stores. Tesco better than anyone recognised the marketing potency and power of that combination: the hard-working, quality-driven farmer for Scotland with a worldwide reputation for high standards of welfare and stockmanship. It was a marketing dream to be capitalised on. Multiple products were given the brand mark, including all our meat products, our game, our dairy products and even our tablet and shortbread. Scotland’s food and drink spoke of provenance and quality.

That home-grown increase in output led to hugely increased exports. The quality of the products added to the branding of Scotland, and a successful food and drink sector was marketed as a land of mystery mountains, swirling peaty waters and misty hills, joined by a land of food and drink.

It is said that imitation is the greatest form of flattery. In 2015, we saw substantial imitation of Scotland’s food and drink strategy emerging from the UK Government. That year, the UK Government launched its very own rule Britannia-esque, union jack-bedecked food and drink strategy. Arguably, it attempted to subsume brand Scotland into brand Britain. The problem for the UK Government was and still is that brand Scotland carries so much more weight than brand Britain. That is simply because post-Brexit Britain is not trusted on the global stage.

The Tory motion talks about

“the challenges and the opportunities”

of Brexit. I would ask the sheep farmers in Scotland to think of the opportunity with our borders now being wide open to unlimited volumes of much cheaper antipodean lamb.

The Labour amendment says that we should harness

“the power of the Scotland Office”

and “reset the relationship” with the EU. That means business as usual. We can forget about Brexit and just let Westminster call the shots and promote Scotland only if it suits its agenda, not when it suits our agenda.

If Scotland’s biggest drink export, Scotch whisky, is to be taxed to the levels recently set by the UK Government, the phenomenal power of that taxation should be used right here, in Scotland, to help our industry to continue to drive innovation, resilience and ambition. It should be helping us to tackle the scourge of poverty, which blights so many communities, instead of being swallowed up in Brexit Britain’s desperate attempts at international relevance.

I wish the strategy every success. It is clear that, working in partnership with the SNP Government, the industry has a massive role to play as a driving force for good as Scotland progresses towards regaining its independence.

Good morning, everybody, and thank you for joining us.

I will come to Robert Emmott first, as he is the only person to have mentioned AI thus far. Such is the exponential growth in the use of AI that change in that respect is likely to be foisted on the councils and, indeed, the Scottish Government. Given that we know that, what active consideration have you given thus far to how AI can assist public sector reform and, indeed, the general provision of your services?

I appreciate that it will be a slightly different question for Malcolm Burr, so, as I have said, I will come to Robert Emmott first. After all, Dundee is home to Abertay University, which is a leading light in the field. Can you give us a flavour of that, Robert?

Malcolm, I understand and appreciate that the scale of this will be markedly different for you.

Is that the same for all of you?

Yes.

As a follow-on, I suggest that one of the critical enablers for the utilisation of AI is sound collection of data. I fully accept what you say about the ethical use of such data, but how aware are you, as a council, of its being an enabler? You mentioned customer services, but that is almost looking at things the wrong way round. After all, the whole point of AI, which is driven by process, is that it blows up and breaks asunder a lot of the functions that we have already developed. How actively focused are you on collecting data as a minimum, given the massive processing power that AI can utilise off the back of that?

Are you taking active steps to develop a strategy—or even to conduct the research that will help frame such a strategy? Again, I am thinking specifically about how it might be utilised in public sector reform, which is all future focused. Where are you in developing your knowledge as a council?