Seòmar agus comataidhean

That reflects the complexity of our respective roles in this area: on the one hand, using public money and Government intervention in certain areas in which the Government chooses to do so; and, on the other, using that as leverage to improve the wider economic outlook in the private sector, in which small and medium-sized businesses, for example, are part of the solution.

I want to touch on the very short mention that is made, on page 14 of your briefing, of the new deal for business that the Scottish Government has touted. Would you say that it is facing a bit of an uphill struggle with that? Last year, independent analysis by commentators such as the Fraser of Allander Institute predicted a less than favourable outlook for that relationship. By August of last year, the Fraser of Allander Institute was saying that only 9 per cent of Scottish businesses believed that the Government understood the business environment that they worked in. In certain sectors, such as hospitality, construction and professional services, there was a huge differential. Between 50 and 90 per cent of businesses there believed that the Scottish Government did not understand their environment.

That is the backdrop that the Government is up against, and that is the uphill struggle that it faces. It is very early to tell, but is there any evidence that the new deal for business is working or has been reset?

Good morning. I think that other members will probably want to talk about the prison transport issue later in the session, but I want to kick off this morning by looking at the bigger picture with regard to the prison population, capacity within the prison estate, and the state of the estate itself.

The forecast for March 2024 was that the prison population would rise to more than 8,000. I presume that that has occurred. It is my understanding that, even running at maximum capacity and at so-called extended operating capacity, we can accommodate no more than about 8,500 prisoners across the entire estate, so we are getting to a crunch point. Given your overarching brief, what is your view of the situation at the moment? How perilous is it?

It is important that we put on record our thanks to those on the front line who deal with and manage this. It sounds like a real balancing act in some of those institutions.

That said, we have made legislative changes over the past decade. The presumption against short sentences of incarceration means that, by the very nature of our system, those who get sent to prison have been convicted of quite serious crimes. How can we achieve that balance? Do we reduce the prison population, as has been suggested, or is the answer to simply build more estate? We have not been building or replacing those antiquated buildings in a timeous fashion, and any attempts to do so have, as we know, gone massively over budget and been hugely delayed.

What is the answer? Should we be building more prisons or putting fewer people in jail—or both?

Do you have any powers to direct it to be closed if you are unhappy with the conditions?

Why is that? What red flags might we see, a couple of years ahead, of projected lower performance relative to other parts of the UK or to similar economies? For example, you say that, in a productivity comparison, we are 16th out of 38 economies, which is around midway through the pack, but clearly we could do better. What is influencing that lower productivity and growth? What analysis should be undertaken of how we could make immediate improvements? That would generate more money for public services.

I am sure that there will be opportunities for Parliament to address those issues with the Government. Other members will probably delve into the specifics of some of those gaps.

I will conclude my questioning by making a wider point. Auditor General, you said that much of the strategy is down to prioritisation or choices. I presume that those are policy choices that are under the control of ministers. Is there an intrinsic conflict between, for example, pure economic growth and the wellbeing economy? Is it difficult for Governments to balance those two different policies? The strategies for both approaches might take them in very different directions.

My questions carry on nicely from the conversation that we have just had about progress on the action points. You said that you do not have a view as to whether 78 or 79 actions are enough or too many, or whether there is the right spread across the six areas, but let us have a look at where we are in terms of auditing.

I am looking at the figures for actions completed under the first four measures, which are more business orientated and are centred around specific interventions rather than things such as diversity, fairness and culture. At the risk of sounding like a football results announcer, the figures are: entrepreneurial people and culture, one; new market opportunities, nil; productive businesses and regions, one; skilled workforce, nil. The figures are pretty poor. Does your audit work lead you to be concerned that we are simply not making enough progress on some of the actions?

I hope that we are not saying that we will have to wait for eight years before we can determine whether the strategy has worked. I am not sure how many of the committee’s current members would be here to question you, or indeed whom we would be questioning. Surely we should have a rolling brief on that, which should be produced annually.

We look forward to that. There are wide expectations about whose role it is to follow the money. It is sometimes hard to follow every pound of public money that is spent by various means—for example, to see which directorate is funding what, which grants are available, where investment is made and where nationalisation has occurred. We need to follow those routes to determine whether there have been good returns on investment and whether the objectives of the NSET and other Government strategies have been met.