Chamber and committees

I appreciate that the matter is primarily for the SPS, but, at a public meeting more than six months ago, the SPS gave assurances that action would be taken and very little has happened. My constituents continually report that there has been little improvement to the disruption that they have suffered for nearly a year now. Indeed, they have been asked to be patient and to consider, as the cabinet secretary says, the wellbeing of the inmates, but there appears to be no appreciation of the impact of the situation on my constituents’ mental health and wellbeing. Recently, the police have been called and two-year-old children are repeating the profanities that they hear over the fence.

What further action can be taken by the SPS to immediately address the issues that my constituents have raised that will deliver a fast and effective solution to a deeply distressing situation that is impacting so negatively on the local community?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide a further update on the Scottish Prison Service’s work to address reported noise disturbance at HMP Stirling. (S6O-03428)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am not sure whether my vote was registered, but I would have voted yes—sorry, no. I would have voted no. [Laughter.]

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.

My earlier question was about what was structural and baked in, and what was susceptible to being changed. To my mind, we have to be a bit realistic about the labour market because it has never been tighter. Unemployment in Scotland is very low—below what economists call full employment, so it is even more full employment, if you like. It is also very low in the UK. We have to be frank about the fact that we do not have a big swathe of unfocused labour that can be deployed to those areas. The way to resolve it is to alleviate the pressures that have been brought in by Brexit, and allow more people to come in. Various organisations have made approaches to the UK Government to do that. In fact, we had that particular approach in Scotland before, under the fresh talent initiative, back in the 2000s, when there was a dispensation in Scotland in order to attract new talent.

Is there any sign of change? A report came out in the UK this week saying that, particularly in the care sector, and maybe in the agricultural sector, there are now chronic shortages. Are you aware of any sign of the UK Government changing its mind, for example, in relation to the wage barrier of £38,000 a year? Are you involved in lobbying for that?