Chamber and committees

It sounds as though you are adopting a very stock and sensible approach. To finish, I merely make the point that it needs a strong driving wind; otherwise, that stated position will never really change, because that is what the evidence has told us over a period of years.

When will the thematic gender review be published—on what date?

Keith?

Thank you for joining us, cabinet secretary. I want to cover a range of issues, and have short, sharp questions.

We often discuss productivity, and we know that there is a massive long-running issue with UK productivity—it is lower here than it is in France, Germany, the USA and so on. I know that you have written to us about the delay in the infrastructure investment plan. I want to hear your reflections on what the specific implications of that delay will be in the light of behaviour changes. What will be stopped and what will be started? What assessment have you made of the impact on internal work that is going on?

I have some sympathy with what you are saying about uncertainty, but there is a flipside to that, which perhaps takes us back to what Michael Marra was saying about pay. With regard to planning, you could have proceeded on the basis of, say, the latest projections from the Scottish Fiscal Commission—that is, the ones that were done earlier—and said, “Okay, this is the de minimis floor.” I accept what you have said about a change to the fiscal rules on debt; indeed, I think that that is highly likely to happen, because they are so constraining for the UK Government. You are saying that, because we do not know, we cannot do anything, but the question that I am exploring is what we can do within that uncertainty. Surely something must be made certain; otherwise, the lack of multiyear funding, which is an approach that we all agree on, is actually stopping lots of things and is, arguably, stopping confidence in moving forward.

I have a few random questions. I noticed that there is now uncertainty around the growth deal for Argyll and Bute. Have you had a chance to explore whether there is uncertainty around any other growth deals? I am thinking in particular, and perhaps selfishly, about the Falkirk growth deal—or rather, the promise of funds that have not yet been finally agreed. Are there any concerns about any of the other growth deals?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. First, I have a quick observation, rather than a question. In the consultation, the concerns that were raised were not about doing more things; it was the way in which the exercise was carried out as a research piece that brought criticism and led to the belief that it was a tick-box exercise.

Moving on, I want to pick up the convener’s comment about the references to “economic growth” being omitted. I have heard your responses to that, cabinet secretary, but I would just add an additional concern. It is my perception that, over the past few years, there has been a lack of clear long-term thinking. We have called this year’s budget scrutiny “A Strategic Approach”, and issues that we hear about often include the lack of multiyear funding and growing the tax base to fund things. Those are long-term endeavours that require a resilient economy. Therefore, when it comes to dropping the term

“sustainable and inclusive economic growth”,

I think that we need to focus for a minute on the “sustainable” part of that.

I would appreciate some comments about that, having heard what the cabinet secretary has said about not having economic growth for its own sake.

And efficient—

My last wee question is whether there is any update on the status of air passenger duty. There has been quite a lot of talk in recent weeks about private jets and so on.

You have made that last point very clearly and, indeed, have made it previously.

Just to finish off this conversation, I have a point about the term “inclusive”. I notice that the equality impact assessment called for consideration of a more gendered national performance framework. The official line from the Scottish Government is that it proposes to mainstream gender more effectively, but it is not yet

“possible to take an intersectional approach”.

I would like your comments on that because, for me, that feeds into some of my concerns with regard to the term “inclusive economic growth”. After all, we know that there is a continuing issue over whether women are getting a top seat at every level of the economic table. I would therefore like to hear your reflections on the EIA and where we are with addressing some of these issues.

On the point about rapid transformations, does the minister have any thoughts about the recent Daily Telegraph article that reported that the anticipated volume of throughput reduction, which was set at 5 per cent, is now estimated to be 15 per cent per year, which figures have been confirmed by Ineos, meaning that the viability of the Forties pipeline will come undone much sooner—around 2030 rather than 2040 to 2050? In other words, surely we need to get our skates on even more.