Chamber and committees

I will finish with a statement; I am not looking for an answer. It seems that you are talking about reinventing the wheel, although that is not a bad idea. However, if there were to be a proper root and branch look at what economic data is required across the board, the Office for the Internal Market seems to be a key place to say, “We need to have this data in order to tell you whether the internal market is working properly.” If, through convenership or other means, the OIM could be in the forefront of the quest to get proper data, that would be a worthwhile objective. I will leave it at that, convener.

I have a final point, which arises from the convener’s question.

What you have just described sounds like the antithesis of a free market, because it involves introducing a level of uncertainty and bureaucracy before anything can be developed. There seems always to be an assumption that more regulation will be attempted and that we will have to respond to that.

This Parliament was set up with specific tax-raising powers, and it has grown many powers since then. In fact, it has been described, perhaps somewhat foolishly, as the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. In my opinion, the internal market act completely cuts across that and drives a coach and horses through the devolved powers that we thought we had.

That is a political viewpoint, but, on a non-political basis, would it not be useful for your organisation to come up with ideas about the collision points between what we think our powers are and what the internal market act will allow? That would create an environment in which we would be able to move forward without the bureaucracy that you have just mentioned, and it would free things up because people would know what the boundaries were.

It is not for me to say so—although it might be for the convener or someone else to do so—but I think that Parliament would find it useful to have someone map out what those boundaries are, so that businesses and individuals who want to innovate or to do something different, with less regulation, could act in the knowledge that they could move forward without having to check with every Administration. I suggest that as a possible piece of work for the OIM. I am not looking for an answer.

I will ask my questions in one go, but first I will make a couple of points. On the commissioner, perhaps it is just a bad time to make the suggestion, because the Parliament is thinking about reducing the number of commissioners. I also have to say that appointed accountability is probably too widespread these days, and elected accountability is not widespread enough.

On the point that was made about climate action, I do not really see the issue with reporting the fact that there is an improvement, but that we have failed to meet climate targets; both things are true, and it is important to be true and accurate in such things.

My questions are about the framework in general. I am interested in your views on its purpose and effect. If we ask somebody in the street about the national performance framework, what kind of response would we get? Would it be wrong to ask that, because the framework is meant for a different purpose? If so, what is that purpose? Is it mainly for the Government, non-governmental organisations and others to self-check?

The second point is that, if we take forward whatever is agreed on in terms of the outcomes of international activity, is it essential or desirable that we have a network of overseas bases in which to promulgate the activities, or is that by the by, and can it be done by another means?

Do you know whether there is a directive that says that those offices can only promote brand Scotland and cannot talk about global responsibility? Why are the two antithetical? Perhaps I am missing a directive that says that you can talk about one but not the other.

Thanks for that. Kate Foster, do you want to comment?

Was your point on expecting or looking forward to growth about growth in exporting to the EU, or just in general?

Before I turn to Mr Cameron, you made a point about capital investment. I imagine that is partly tied to the fact that previous exporters are now seeing diminishing returns because of the fall-off in trade with the EU and the willingness to invest more in capital is probably tied to their perception of what the returns might be.

You spoke about the growing trade with Indonesia and elsewhere. Is that happening because there used to be a differential between exporting to the EU and to those areas, which did not make it as attractive as just trading with the EU, but it has now become more attractive to trade with those countries, even if it has not become any cheaper?

I come to David—I will not try to pronounce your second name; I was not here when you were introduced and I will probably mispronounce it.

What is your perspective on what is now structural and built in, which companies from Scotland in particular will not overcome, and on what is susceptible to improvement through the work of some of the organisations that are here?

From what you said, the opportunities will, by and large, depend on how the EU defines what is in its interest. If it wants a particular sector or service, it might choose to make that easier because it is in its interest to do so. That seems to me to be logical. Is that right?

Good morning and happy Europe day. I should say that my view has always been that we should have stayed in the EU, as was true for the majority of people in Scotland. However, we are out now and the inquiry has heard from a number of witnesses about businesses in Scotland that have gone bust, ones which have stopped exporting altogether and ones which have been taken over—one example is a company that was taken over by a German company so that it could continue to export to the EU with slightly less friction. We have also heard that it is harder now for some companies in Scotland to export to the EU than it is for them to export to Turkey or Russia. Last week, we heard from a witness from Northern Ireland that the UK is rapidly becoming the most expensive place in the world in which to do business.

The work that you do in trying to boost exports brings benefits but, given all those points, it would be good to get an appreciation of what you think you can achieve. How much is structural and is not going to change? We have not seen a lot of the frictions bite yet, but we will do shortly. How much is structural and not susceptible to encouraging businesses to export more and will always mean that there is a competitive disadvantage? Conversely, how much of it is susceptible to doing things differently and improving what we do so that we can overcome those structural issues? I do not know whether that makes sense. I am just trying to get an idea of the extent of what is possible.