Chamber and committees

Do David Lonsdale or our other panellists have any final comments? Are there things that we have not had a chance to discuss today? Given the economic crises that we are facing across a range of areas, is there anything else that it would be useful for the committee to hear?

Good morning, panel. It is nice to see you all.

My question follows on from our discussion of sexual harassment. I will focus on the gender pay gap, into which we had some insight in your introductory remarks. I would like to understand the situation a bit more. We can all see that a lot of work is being done on it, such as the Scottish Government’s “A fairer Scotland for women: gender pay gap action plan”, but I am interested in understanding what more practical solutions can be implemented, specifically by the Scottish Government, bearing in mind that there are systemic issues that are particularly prevalent in retail and hospitality—we all understand that. In other words, give us your bright ideas about what the Scottish Government can do as opposed to measures for which we would have to rely on the UK Government.

You have been very clear and have given a huge amount of information. Can I assume that everything that you have said is more than applicable to retail and hospitality which, arguably, as a sector, is symptomatic of all the issues, both in systemic terms and policy terms, that you outline?

This is my last wee question because I am aware of the time and the convener is giving me a warning look. I think that everything that you have said applies to retail and hospitality many times over. For the record, can you confirm that?

Obviously, the new process applies to former ministers, so what consideration have you given to how iterations of the process will be communicated to them and over what timescale, both in relation to former ministers and in relation to ministers who are currently in post—five years down the line, how will they be communicated with? I am not talking about the detail of the process, but they need to understand that they have a responsibility to be across the process at a given point in time and as it evolves. Where is your thinking on that?

I agree completely but, with regard to Lesley Fraser’s comments, if this is done under a UK civil service remit and approach, how will the different and more nuanced approach that we are taking here be reflected?

I also want to hear a bit more about the extent to which the data that is published will be quantitative or qualitative. After all, the biggest change in all of this will be to culture and behaviour, which are always the hardest things to change. In that respect, it is the qualitative insights that give that flavour. How will success be measured or reflected in the next version of the people survey? Are you planning to include additional Scottish Parliament elements to get a sense of that?

Good morning, Deputy First Minister. It took me quite a long time to get into Edinburgh today, too, so I have every sympathy with you.

I want to ask about three broad areas. First, you have indicated that you are developing measures of success for the programme, but I want to get a little more flavour of how those measures will feed into later iterations of the people survey. Indeed, on the back of that, can you tell us what will be put in the public domain? In other words, my question is not how you but how we will test the measures of success, given our responsibility for scrutinising public administration issues.

Thank you. I have seen a lot of this kind of development in my previous career and there is a risk that the process can become the absolute. In that respect, I was just a bit surprised to note that the review of bringing in propriety and ethics is the last step in the process, because the risk then is that the ethical approach is applied from a deontological rather than a consequentialist perspective. What is your thinking about that being the last step in the chain and therefore how you can look back at it from a consequentialist, ethical basis—in other words, on an outcome basis, because this is all about the outcome and not just about the process?

Phil, do you have anything to add in response to the original question?

I will move that on in my last question. With commercial properties, traditionally, somebody would have taken on the whole building, which would often be sublet for SMEs or microbusinesses. The model that you mention is similar, but for artisans. As you suggest, the return on investment is not as clear cut, which might rule out some of the bigger private guys.

Can we see something like that working to repurpose buildings? I appreciate that there is a lot of complexity around funding, if there is a public-private initiative, for example. Are there any final comments on that? Perhaps Anthea Coulter or Gemma Cruickshank would like to come in.

I noticed in our documentation that you have consulted your members. Are you able to provide any insights off the back of that that would help to answer my question?