Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I am conscious that, in the evidence that you have given us this morning, you have been consistent with each other and with what the committee has heard in this inquiry previously, except in one regard, which is the strength of feeling. In the past, we have heard from individual businesses that are said to have stopped exporting altogether to the EU. Some have gone bust—I am thinking particularly of a small business in Kintyre—and some have looked to be taken over. In one case, a business looked to be taken over by a German company, because that would make it easier to export to the EU. Businesses are pretty strident and negative about their experience. One company told us that it now finds it easier to export to Turkey, Russia and China than to the EU. That is an immediate drop-off. I think that the loss to the UK is meant to be at least £140 billion.

On the last point that Mr Williams raised about investment in the UK, we now hear that the City of London stock exchange has reduced in size significantly and that that is an on-going process.

I know that some of your organisations are the Scottish side of UK-wide organisations. I want to find out whether you have found a different experience in Scotland, or whether what you have just talked about is common throughout the UK. In Scotland, for many years, we have had a positive balance of payments—if there was such a thing—as we in Scotland export substantially more than the rest of the UK does, compared to what we import. I would be interested if you could say, from the point of view of your organisations, whether the things that we are experiencing, such as the mobility of labour, are common across the UK. Is that more pronounced in Scotland?

I will go to Mr Bain. Welcome, Mr Bain. I think that the last time we met was on “Newsnight” some years ago. It is nice to see you again. Would you like to come in on those points?

I thank the witnesses. We heard earlier in the inquiry—

Earlier in the committee’s inquiry, we heard, mainly from Scottish stakeholders, that the Windsor agreement has been pretty disastrous. I think that, across the UK, £140 billion has been lost to the economy. We have heard of Scottish companies that have gone bust—which, from what you have said, has not happened in Northern Ireland. We have heard of Scottish companies that have stopped exporting to the EU completely, because it is too prohibitive. We have seen job losses and so on. We have also heard of Scottish companies that have been taken over—in one example, by a German company—because that makes it easier to trade with the EU. It seems that the experience in Scotland has been pretty disastrous given the additional costs of doing business, the friction, the regulations and so on. In fact, we heard that, for some businesses, it is more difficult to deal with the EU than to deal with Russia.

Your experience seems to be different, which is, no doubt, partly due to the dual market access that Northern Ireland has, although you have also said that the UK is becoming one of the most expensive places in the world to do business. Do you think that, where the Windsor agreement is working, it is working to the advantage of Northern Ireland and thereby to the disadvantage of Scotland? Both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU, but we have had very different paths since then. If that advantage exists, will you seek to protect it as the TCA evolves?

We have had quite a number of round tables, and I have found this to be the most interesting that we have had, because of the contributions.

There is a kind of false debate going on about how good or bad Brexit might be but having heard about the practical examples of additional costs, markets being closed off, firms being stopped from doing things that they were doing before or doing things in Ireland rather than Scotland, as well as the other additional costs and confusion, I think that the situation seems pretty horrendous. I am happy to be corrected, but I am assuming that all the examples that have been given demonstrate how things have changed from the base, which was pretty much seamless. Going back to the samples that were mentioned earlier, I would say that everything used to be done pretty easily; now we are talking about new costs and loss—that is, loss of control or innovative capacity in Scotland. That is really worrying.

On the question of how you actually deal with the situation, I remember going to Canada a few years back to ensure that haggis was able to go on sale there. That was not possible in the US, as the Americans would not accept it. I remember the US authorities in New Jersey and New York saying that they were fed up to the back teeth of people trying to export to the US who did not have regard to their certification and standards. People kept on saying that they had certification, perhaps from the EU or Italy for cheese or whatever. The US authorities said, “We’re not interested. We just want you to comply with what we need.”

This might be a gross simplification of what is required but, in that context, would it be helpful for industry to have somebody—whether from the Scottish Government, the UK Government or both together—who was able to explain to a firm what it could export, and to which countries, if it did all the things listed on a certain page? I know that requirements are dynamic and that they can change over time—indeed, even while your products are sitting on the quayside—but I wonder whether it would be useful to have that kind of simplified list of all the things that firms have to do to satisfy the requirements.

By the way, I do not share the optimism that the EU being subject to some of the same constraints will make it change its attitude. The EU made it plain throughout the debate that we would not feel as comfortable after Brexit as we did before—although I hope that we can. Is that sort of simplified support from Government worth having, or would that be too complex? Might the industry be required to do that itself, because only those in the industry know everything that they have to do?