Chamber and committees

We rely very much on security staff in the Parliament, so I wanted to mention that.

We have heard talk of a toxic environment and culture wars. We have even heard quite a chilling assertion that the Scottish Government should be involved in setting up the guidance, which I am sure would make a chill run down the spine of many in the artistic community. On the point about there being a toxic environment and what has led to that, there is a bit of misinformation. A member of this committee has referred to you as an SNP quango. I know that this sounds a bit absurd, but can you just confirm that the SNP has no control over, contact with or reporting lines to Creative Scotland? That would be useful for the public record.

In the detail that you sent to the committee, I noticed that there was to be a performance in Camden in London, as part of the proposal. Has any of the correspondence that you have received or the concerns that have been expressed to you come from outwith Scotland—from London, for example, or elsewhere?

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 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?