Chamber and committees

I have a final point, which is not a question, because there is no time. I had wanted to ask about how your attitudes may have changed because of Brexit and because of what seems to be a very live discussion about whether the UK should come out of the European convention on human rights. If you want to submit something in writing, that would be really helpful, but we do not have time for an answer.

Thanks for coming along this morning. It is probably true of any new organisation that you are basically asked to justify your existence. It is not unexpected; it is true of most such bodies. Given that Scottish taxpayers will be contributing to the cost of your organisation, it is legitimate that we ask such questions.

In a similar vein to the previous questions, there are things that concern me. First, I ask you to accept my assurance that, if you were a department of the Scottish Government, you would be frequently termed “the Scottish National Party OIM” or “a creature of the Scottish Government” and you would be derided regularly in the media for being such. That is just the nature of politics in Scotland. However, you are a department of the UK Government, and surely some people will raise questions about your independence and the nature of your advice. It is quite dispiriting to hear you say that you do not take sides—not that I am asking you to take my side, but, in some cases, surely there is a side to be taken, presumably on the basis of an open market.

Some of the background in relation to the DRS has been mentioned. If it seems as though the way in which the market operates is at the behest of one party to it, which is how it is perceived by many people, that hobbles that market. The DRS could be termed as being regulatory. Others could say that it is part of the market itself and that markets will have to adapt to climate change. However, that development was stymied because of the interests of one group, according to some people’s interpretations.

The extent to which you may be seen—I am sure wrongly—as being supportive of the UK Government, which you are a department of, perhaps undermines your purpose, as does the lack of powers. I appreciate the point that, if you got such powers, we would be duplicating powers that others already have, such as the CMA. How do you overcome that? That is one question.

Secondly, to go back to Alexander Stewart’s question, there is an appalling lack of proper data on economic and market conditions. That also undermines your powers. Even ONS-produced stuff is based on surveys; it is not based on data. Employment figures are based on surveys. Export figures are completely opaque in the UK. It is not possible to have a proper estimate of what exports go from Scotland or from other parts of the UK. Given how bad it is to hear of and read about the lack of data in England, I ask you to consider a situation whereby a future UK Government decided that it did not like something that a Scottish or Welsh Government did and was able to say, without any evidence, that that would affect the English market. If nobody knows the conditions of the English market, that cannot be tested.

There are three things that might undermine your role. The first is the lack of powers. The second is your attachment to the UK Government as a department of that Government. Presumably, the panel appointments were agreed by the UK Government, but I do not know that. The third is that you are being asked to work in an environment in which you have very poor data, which cannot be conducive to the efficient working of a market economy. What is your response to that?

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.

The Lord Advocate stated that the Post Office and the UK Government, in her words,

“continued to support the Horizon system during the 2013 to 2015 period, and beyond”

and that there were

“worrying levels of deliberate and sustained concealment and deception ... during this period.”

Can the Lord Advocate say whether that might present a liability for the Post Office and the UK Government separately from any agreed compensation scheme? Given that the concealment was “deliberate and sustained” and that it can reasonably be said to have led to the imprisonment, the traumatisation and even the suicide of some of the victims of the disgraceful deception, could it result in criminal proceedings against those who were responsible for that deception?

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)

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?

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.]

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.

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?