���˿���

Personally, I think that what was in the application should have set off alarm bells.

Earlier, Mr Wilson said that Creative Scotland has not misled anyone. From what you have said about the application, and the fact that it turned out to include live sex, do you believe that Creative Scotland was misled by the applicant about the nature of the project?

Thank you for your answers. I have one final question. Substantial funds of more than £100,000 were awarded to the project’s R and D phase and application. We have heard this morning that the bulk of the funds have been repaid. How much was awarded and how much has been repaid?

We have already discussed the public discourse and the reaction to the funding grant. The committee wrote to Creative Scotland on 25 March, asking for the application to be published because we felt that doing so was in the interests of public confidence and transparency. Creative Scotland responded on 16 April, stating that, although there was an intention to publish the application, that could not be done until

“a thorough review of ... materials”

was undertaken

“to remove any personal information, any business confidential information, or any information that, if publicly disclosed, could pose a threat to an individual”.

You will note that the application and the materials were released under FOI on Tuesday 21 May. The first I heard of the application process was through the media. However, the committee was not sent the full application until 22 May. As the committee asked for the application to be published on 25 March, why did it have to learn about it through the media a day after it was released?

So £31,578 has not been repaid.

The FOI responses were published on 21 May and the committee got the application on 22 May. It is regrettable that we were not given the application when we asked for it, or at least when the responses were published.

On the issue of transparency—I go back to previous points about the alarm bells that should have been ringing—you will be aware that internal emails, as reported in The Times newspaper in September 2022, just a month after the project was awarded funding, suggested that the project could cause concern if picked up by the press. Were either of you personally aware of those concerns? If so, did you speak with the individual who had raised them, and did you feel assured that those concerns were misplaced?

Thank you. That is all, convener.

Good morning to the panel. In particular, as Mr Brown said, it is good to see Mr Bain.

My question relates to Prosper’s written evidence, but I would like to hear reflections from other panel members as well. Mr Williams, in that evidence, you said:

“Many respondents reported challenges due to differing implementation of the TCA by EU states or authorities. Some of these appeared to be due to a lack of understanding of the rules. There was a perception among some respondents that some states or authorities were being more deliberately unhelpful.”

I would like further details on what particular states you were referring to, how unhelpful they were and what motivations were behind that. Do the other witnesses have any reflections on that evidence?

Thank you for that answer. You mentioned that some of the issues have been progressed and that there has been work to resolve them. Prosper also laid out six key actions that required work, and I note from the evidence that Prosper has welcomed

“the positive progress in relation to some of these actions.”

A number of points are solely for the UK Government, industry and regulators.

A couple of points related to the Scottish and UK Governments, as well as to industry. One was about working with industry to capture and act on trade frictions, tasking Government overseas offices with resolving trade frictions and sharing examples of successful actions. Another was about engaging positively with the EU on policy development and impact, scaling up Scotland House Brussels’s engagement with EU institutions and Scottish industry stakeholders and facilitating a programme of regular policy missions from Scotland to EU institutions. What specific actions can and should the Scottish Government be taking, what progress has been made on those key action points and what has resulted in practice?

Do Catherine McWilliam or the other panel members have any thoughts on actions that the Scottish Government could be taking to improve these matters?

This morning, we have heard that sales from Northern Ireland to Great Britain are up, and—I think that Mr Kelly said this—that the Northern Irish economy is 6 per cent larger in comparison with 1 per cent larger for the UK as a whole over recent years. We have heard about the benefits of unique dual market access, but we have also heard that that is not a panacea and that there are additional costs. There are also concerns about problems facing the Scottish economy and the wider GB economy.

We have been looking at a number of issues with regard to potential changes in relation to closer alignment, veterinary agreements and mutual recognition of professional standards. We just heard about the example of veterinary medicines, on which an agreement needs to be negotiated at UK-EU level.

On the issue of reviewing the TCA and the potential for closer alignment, I appreciate that, in Northern Ireland, there are always political views on these matters one way or the other. Nevertheless, are there any measures on which GB is looking to negotiate a trade and co-operation agreement or closer alignment with the EU that would be met with resistance from businesses or the economy in Northern Ireland because they would potentially dilute those unique benefits from the dual market access that Northern Ireland currently has?