Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are talking specifically about investing in renewables.

You are absolutely—

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. I have a slight feeling of “plus ça change ... ” as I address four men on my favourite theme of how we alleviate some of the issues around women’s representation in the economy. I am sure that none of you will be surprised by that.

With regard to narrowing the gender pay gap, which you mentioned earlier, I have seen that being promoted, but there is so much—I repeat, so much—more that we have to do to address the systemic issues in our economy. In a chamber debate last week, I remarked that wellbeing in particular must be seen through a gendered lens; indeed, that is utterly fundamental. If I am being completely honest, I have to say that I feel as though we are, if anything, moving backwards instead of forwards. I say that, bearing in mind the fact that my colleague Ms Hyslop made sure that a women’s business centre was inserted into the Government’s priorities with a spend of around, as I recall, £50 million; that was incorporated into what we looked at in relation to the Ana Stewart review.

My first question is this: can you give me more of a flavour of what specifically you are looking at in the Ana Stewart review? When will you be able to come back with recommendations that you are able to support?

One area of Ana Stewart’s report that I want to emphasise is encapsulated in recommendation 30, on the collection of data. At the moment, we do not have the data sets that would enable us to gather the data that we need, to measure it and to use it to effect change. Moreover, we do not apply any conditionality to public sector funding, whether it relates to women’s representation or equalities matters in general—which I accept is a wide area. Will you give an indication of how open minded you are to at least taking—and I must emphasise this—the first step? We cannot measure and improve our data if we do not even collect it. That is why, in my opinion, we are at a pretty low marker. Are you willing to commit today to considering that as a minimum?

Incidentally, I had an undertaking on that from the former Deputy First Minister. That did not come to pass either, so I really have to push you on this.

Thank you for that—you have certainly set out what you see as some opportunities. My specific question, however, was about risks. Given the significant international competition for the funding that is required, can you give me more of a flavour, or set out more detail, as to what you think are the risks that external investors see in investing in the UK at the scale that is required, and what mitigations you are putting in place?

I do not disagree about any of the principles, but the devil will be in the detail. What I am looking for are your assurances that the multi-agency meetings will put an equivalent level of attention on the costs and the savings, which you have outlined, as they will on driving forward the policy. The last thing that you, as a new minister in post—and I appreciate that you are talking about something on which you have had no say—would want is for this to be subject to considerable cost overruns because the things that are missing from the FM are missing because they are complex and difficult and you do not have policy detail.

I suppose that I am looking for assurances, because some people think that the funding is quite dull compared with the policy; however, if you think that, you are taking a risk, and I would not want to see you do that. I am simply looking for your assurances that you will pass that on to the people who are supporting you.

Good morning. I will ask Professor Flinders a couple of questions from an academic perspective.

Your submission makes comments about culture, behaviour, avoiding groupthink, confirmation bias, and so on. You also point out that there is a need for critical friends. How is that limited when power—for instance, over someone’s job, career or their future line of funding, in instances where third sector organisations rely on Government—comes into play? What are your general thoughts about how prevalent that is and how commonly it is understood as a risk in the public sector?

That is helpful. The middle-road approach to continuous improvement that academia brings is worth the committee exploring further when we look at comparables in Scotland. I know that Sophie Howe wants to come in on my earlier point, then I will head back to Professor Flinders.

We cannot see you, but we can hear you clearly.

I expect that Professor Martin will also have a view on that. Following my question to Professor Flinders about culture and behaviours, I want to ask about the relationship between complexity and risk and, therefore, any limitations on innovation. Based on your experience, how does the appetite for or attitude towards risk, linked to complexity, inadvertently limit innovation in the public sector in general terms?