Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are all pleased to hear about the updated FM. I am sure that we all agree on the worthiness of the bill, but this committee’s specific focus will always be on the money and the spend. You have indicated that there is uncertainty about the original estimates. I want to explore how you see the scale of the challenge going forward. We know that multiple areas of various sections are excluded from the original FM—those areas have no estimates at all. In addition to that, there is the group that you mentioned—I am sorry, but I have forgotten its name.

How will you assure yourself, first, that all costs are included, albeit in estimate form, and secondly, that the costs have taken account of what is now a high inflationary cost environment? Critically, I suppose that the question that I am probing is, to what extent will the FM be given the full weight it deserves, alongside the undoubted enthusiasm for what are some very strong policies?

Leading on from that, your submission also alludes to complexity—

Thank you. I would like to finish off with Professor Flinders, since he was cut off in his prime, as it were. Throughout this whole conversation is the theme of maturity, whether it is about how we deal with risk, innovation, complexity or power. Do you have any final thoughts or reflections on what you have heard thus far? This is the academic side of decision making.

Do you have any bright ideas on that?

Thank you for that. I am laughing slightly, given that we are operating in a political environment.

My last wee question is for Lucy Hughes. Your submission is excellent. I have asked about this a lot. I will quote you:

“The collection and analysis of intersectional gender-sensitive sex-disaggregated data on women’s experiences is central”

and it carries on. I feel that, in the short time that I have been here, I keep asking the same questions about routinely disaggregating data by sex, but get no further forward. If we do not know what the position is, we cannot begin to move forward. It seems as though we are continually making decisions with one arm tied behind our back. We do not know what the actuality is, because we are not collecting the data that would tell us. Is that your sentiment? What do you say in your submission about the quality of decision making for 51 per cent of our population?

Good morning, everybody, and thank you for the very fulsome submissions that you made to this inquiry, which have been noted.

Rachel Le Noan, I want to come to you first. You make an interesting comment in the SCVO submission that it is about trust and power and who has it. You also quote the very interesting statement that trust and parity of esteem should be in “spheres ... not tiers” because,

“When you have tiers, you then have the whole issue around power and who has power and influence.”

Can you think of an example of where that has had practical effect and talk us through it?

Okay. I get what you are saying about the scale of representation, and you make that point clear in your submission.

Have there been times when, in terms of line of sight of funding, you have felt that you or any of the organisations that you represent have been required to give what you might see as the right answer or the preferred answer because of the mechanism of funding and fears or uncertainty over that? Is that a general concern or a fear that you hold?

Do you think that, in general, the Scottish Government wants a critical friend or is that a statement that it uses but that is a kind of esoteric desire? There is a difference between the two.

That was serendipity, Lucy, because I intended to bring you in on the thread of trust, power and decision making, as I have specific questions about your very fulsome submission, which I appreciate was submitted on behalf of Scottish Women’s Aid, Close the Gap and Engender.

However, just to finish the point about how there could be a subliminal effect on bringing thoughts or decision making to the table, I want to ask about something contentious. When Parliament had its big debate about the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, I was surprised to find that no qualitative impact assessment had been done, over a period of six years, on the impact on women who had been raped or sexually assaulted by those with fully intact male genitalia in what they would consider to be safe spaces. I make no comment on the rights or wrongs of that—or on any of that debate—and instead I am exploring it from a decision-making point of view, because it is surprising that no qualitative impact assessment was done in six years.

My question to you and all the other witnesses is whether you have sought qualitative assessments in decision making. You mentioned equality impact assessments. Did you seek those and were you discouraged, or did you not seek them? How did that come about during a period of six years? I appreciate that you might not have been at Engender for six years, but I am interested in that, because it framed a decision-making process.