Chamber and committees

Yes, convener. In the interests of time, I will be quick.

I thank the witnesses very much for everything that they have said so far.

I want to go back to the focus of the session, which is the outlook for business investment. I want to ask about your perceptions for women in your sector: women-led SMEs, women in renewables generally, and women in the just transition. Given the very fulsome comments about data, can you make it clear whether your comments are merely perceptions, based on anecdotal evidence, and where you do not have the data collectors in place? On the back of that, where would you need to see data collectors in place?

Could Claire Mack lead off on that? In the interests of time, I will just go around the panel.

What about the question about data, the current status, and how you know whether that is true?

I will leave that with you as something to think about. Whether you routinely disaggregate all data that is collected by gender is a valid question. It flows through into procurement, for example. Do you know whether you have equitability in your procurement with regard to women-led businesses? That is an issue for many facets of the Parliament, as I am coming across.

Good morning, Deputy First Minister. I will pick up on a couple of points that the convener posited. On capital expenditure, you have given a clear rationale around the global economic considerations, and said that you might therefore seek to delay rather than stop projects. That makes me think that every capital project will be impacted by what you describe and therefore that every capital project could be delayed. Could you give any more flavour as to the type of project that you have in mind?

Thank you for that clarification. You mentioned construction, and we know that we still have a chronic undersupply of affordable housing and a massive pent-up demand that goes back years. Are you able to give any more flavour at this point of the type of project or sector on which you might seek to impose a delay for the circumstances that you have outlined?

It was mentioned earlier that the capex figure is set to fall by 2.9 per cent in real terms. I know that consideration of terms of reference for the fiscal framework review is under way, but do you sense any increasing urgency for that, given the probably fairly common calls for an increase in capex borrowing powers for the Scottish Government? Do you sense any increased urgency from the UK Government?

Net zero is a particular concern in the context of capex. We know that it will involve difficult decisions; indeed, you have commented that there will be genuinely difficult decisions for Scotland that will require significant long-term private investment and behaviour change. I wondered what you meant by “behaviour change” in that context.

Finally, I mention a matter that has been alluded to and which I am sure other members will want to ask about. There are huge demands for public sector pay deals, which must be a massive challenge at the moment. I know that the Government is working extremely hard to reach agreement on various pay demands, but what contingencies do you have in place if a deal cannot be reached with a sector by the end of the fiscal year?

It is said that it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. That is probably what we are seeing with the fixed budget model. The committee knows that the extent to which the public understand how the financial framework for the Scottish Parliament operates is always a concern. I know that you and all the ministers have been at pains to help people to understand what a fixed budget actually means, but I still hear—whether it is about politics or otherwise—even media representatives blithely ignoring the fact that there is a fixed budget and the implications flowing from that. I know that you work very hard to try to get that message out there, but is there anything more that you and, indeed, we can do to support that?

Good morning, and thank you for attending today. I echo Jackson Carlaw’s comments about the staff. The operation of the Parliament is a huge undertaking: many people do not appreciate that. I will happily take up the offer of a tour of the basement and promise not to press any red buttons.

Slightly unusually, I start by going back to Brexit and taking issue with the convener. If I were in a similar position to you, I would need to give careful consideration to the number of full-time equivalent posts required for forthcoming work on Brexit. I know from anecdotal conversations with the clerks that the number of legislative consent memorandums, and the complexity and scrutiny of that work, has been quite considerable in the past year. When I talk about retained European Union law and the back-end scrutiny of that in the coming year, that is usually greeted by horror from the clerks whom I speak to, because so much is unknown.

I am not certain about the specific additional head count provision that you have made for Brexit, given that retained EU law might lead to circa 4,000 pieces of legislation folding. I am sure that it will not come to that, but the number is certainly considerable. What is the specific head count and how confident are you in the provision of that head count?