Seòmar agus comataidhean

Those are all the question that I have, convener.

You have said that the stoking of this controversy has led to—I forget your exact words—international awareness of the issue, which you said is not helpful to Scotland and its reputation throughout the world. I suggest that those who are responsible for the culture wars could not care less whether that is the case. There is a point to what they do in that regard; they are trying to undermine institutions such as yours.

However, you are partially funded by National Lottery funding. Just as the Scottish Government was not involved in this situation, I take it that the National Lottery was not involved, has not expressed concerns and is not in any way involved in this. Is that right?

I want to say at the start that Dean Ronaldson retires today after more than two decades of working here as a security guard, and I think that it is important that we put in the Official Report our thanks to him for his service over the past couple of decades.

Members: Hear, hear.

Thanks very much for that. I do not have any further questions. The question maybe caught all three members of the panel off guard but, if you have any further thoughts as to what Scotland could do, that would be interesting.

In relation to the examples of Canada and Germany, for context, I will just say that the Scottish Parliament—the so-called most powerful devolved Parliament in the world—does not have anything like the input that the provinces of Canada have with the federal Government there, or anything like the input that the Länder have in Germany.

On Mike Buckley’s point about asking the UK Government whether Scottish Government representatives could sit in with UK representatives, we actually have the reverse of that just now, in that the UK Government has insisted that, when the Scottish Government talks to other Governments, a UK Government representative must be there. On the issue of Brexit, Scotland, along with Wales and Northern Ireland, was completely excluded from the discussions and negotiations. We have a very highly centralised and controlling unitary state here, which is worth bearing in mind. However, if you have any further thoughts on what Scotland could do, that would be useful.

The point about Ireland is interesting, but I have to say that, if someone enjoys the standard of living in Ireland, which has raced past the standard of living in the UK, why would they want to come to the UK? The opportunities and the standard of living in Ireland are so much better than those in the UK now.

Thanks very much for those interesting responses.

That is really helpful. Pete, did you want to respond?

First, I am looking to hear about the actions that you think might be possible for Scotland specifically to take to address some of the issues that you have raised. I am thinking in particular about Mr Hamilton’s comment that Canadians looked over the border to Michigan to deal with state level—sub-sovereign state level, but state level in that case—actions that could make plain the benefit of working with Canada in relation to the North American free trade agreement, or whatever the term is that Canadians use, which I should know. I should say to Mr Hamilton that I know Nova Scotia very well—I have relatives in Bridgetown and Digby, and spent time in Prince Edward Island at university.

I am thinking about what actions Scotland could take, independent of UK relations. I completely agree with Mr Buckley’s analysis of the prospect of any real, meaningful change, and the references that we have heard to a failed state and the far-right or populist nature of the Conservative Party are illuminating.

The point about trust is crucial: if you enter into trade negotiations in a trade agreement that you later admit you had no intention of standing by, that is, of course, corrosive of trust. However, Michael Heseltine made a statement today, in which he said that there is no prospect of Brexit being discussed by the two major parties during the current election campaign, because it is not in their interests to do so. That, again, limits the ability to have a realistic look at the damage that Brexit has done. I do not have the exact quote in front of me, but he said that it is such an act of self-harm and that it is patently obvious that it has to be addressed if we are to improve things.

One of the most telling points is that, if the UK gets a new Labour Government, the EU will still say, “Well, what happens in the future? If the UK then reverts to another far-right Government, that will unravel things. If there is so little prospect of change, why would our reaching out to change some things be worth the candle?”

There is also the underlying point about the unlikelihood of a major change to the TCA. It is a pretty grim scenario—I should say that I agree on that. It is worth pointing out that it did not have to be that way, even after the vote on Brexit, but a choice was made to go for the hardest possible Brexit and to throw out the single market.

What scope for action, if any, do you believe Scotland would have—whether its companies, organisations, Government or Parliament—to try to ameliorate some of the effects of that situation? We, at least anecdotally, believe that we have a more receptive audience in the EU, because, as a country, we voted against Brexit pretty massively. In addition to what Mr Hamilton has said, what else could Scotland do to ensure that the loss of companies, jobs and exports that we have suffered so far can be turned around?

I will come to Mr Hamilton first, since I mentioned his example.

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?

I understand your points. However, on the point about data and information, you can understand why a business survey would be the appropriate way to test business confidence, for example—that is, people’s attitudes and how they feel. However, there is no information, or very little information, on things such as the level of trade flows for the biggest part of the UK—England—or on many other economic indices. I realise that that is not your job. All that I am asking, notwithstanding the previous concerns that I mentioned, is whether you would be a voice to say to the ONS and others, such as the UK Government and other bodies—you have rightly said that there are many different bodies that collate that information—that, in the 21st century, we should have proper data that we can base decisions on. If we do not start from that basis, we are groping around in the dark.