Chamber and committees

I am new to this, but from listening to what has been said and in response to your point that we started off with a more unified situation, I suppose that the implication is that we are about to become less unified or experience more divergence. It seems a bit absurd to have started off in a single market and to now be moving to what appears, even in name, to be the more insular approach of an internal market. If it was a single market previously, surely the benefits were there in the first place. Do we need bureaucratic superstructures to regulate or monitor a situation where we previously had a single market? It seems odd that we would have to do that.

On that and in an attempt to be helpful, you have mentioned meaningful data, so one way that you could build that—whether you do that by your own hand or whether others do it—is through an examination of public bodies’ approved lists of contractors. It is probably easier to gain that information from them than from elsewhere. The purpose of that would be to say that, in a perfect market where innovation and efficiency are rewarded, we would see huge numbers of Scottish companies servicing Welsh local authorities or English companies servicing Northern Ireland authorities. That might give you a better indication, especially over time, of whether the internal market is working more efficiently. Would it be possible, either through your organisation or the Office for National Statistics, to get that kind of data and to monitor it over time to see whether it improves or otherwise?

I have one last point, which is counter to the point that I just made, but that is the way that I think of these things.

There is also a fairly developed movement—I forget the term for it; it is not quite a circular economy. The north of England area, perhaps Sheffield, does this very effectively: it tries to ensure that the money spent by public bodies is spent in the local area—it is recycled, if you like. I do not know whether that would be termed as divergence, but have you come across that or would you take it into account in the figures?

There has been a movement away from compulsory competitive tendering, decades ago, to best value and, in the past 10 years, a more liberal regime. For example, local authorities could place a contract with somebody who was not giving them the cheapest price because there would be wider benefits from placing the contract with them. I suppose that that works against the idea of an internal market, but I just wonder whether that has appeared on your radar yet.

I think that you are right—that would probably not come under divergence. However, I think that it would come under the efficient operation of an internal market.

I am not aware of any relevant interests, although, in the interests of transparency, I should say that my partner is the Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development.

I want to follow up on the question that Donald Cameron asked about the figures on Scottish exports. There are huge numbers of key figures relating to the economy that rely on pretty ropey survey data. That is true across the UK. In Scotland’s case, we often have to rely on the Department of Trade and Industry, or whatever it is now called, and HM Revenue and Customs for some of the figures.

It is true that, as Donald Cameron said, the figures are very woolly, which is really surprising for a so-called advanced economy in the 21st century. Is it your intention to see whether you can start to nail down those figures, not just in Scotland but across the UK?

My question relates to my constituency interest in the school that has just been mentioned by Alex Cole-Hamilton, who does not represent Dunblane.

RAAC issues were identified at Queen Victoria school in Dunblane, as well as at the University of Stirling, which I will take up separately with the relevant minister. Both are very important institutions in my constituency. My understanding is that QVS is an MOD school, and that the responsibility for its upkeep lies with the UK Department for Education. In addition to what the cabinet secretary has just said, can she confirm that any issues that have been identified have been dealt with and that there is no on-going risk to students and staff in either of those buildings?

Given that QVS is an MOD school, was the Scottish Government made aware of the RAAC issues at QVS when they were first identified by the Department for Education?

Will the member take an intervention?

I do not know whether Russell Findlay heard what the cabinet secretary said, but all the parties in Northern Ireland believe that the bill undermines the rights of victims to seek redress. It also undermines devolution and, crucially—this is the first time that I can remember this happening—it undermines the independent role of the Lord Advocate. Does none of that concern Mr Findlay?

We should never be complacent when it comes to widening access, but the numbers do not lie. Higher education student statistics show that, since 2006-07, there has been an increase of 31.4 per cent in the number of Scotland-domiciled full-time first-degree entrants to our universities, and we are seeing more people from the most deprived areas going to our universities. Does the minister agree that the party that introduced free university education by scrapping the graduate endowment needs no lessons from the Tories when it comes to widening access?