���˿���

I have one final wee question. You talked about prudent assessment of the potential scale of additional funds. That term “prudent” has a particular meaning. What do you regard as prudent? What margin of error have you built in?

Yes. You have accurately depicted the wider environment in regard to rules—you mentioned the WTO and so on—but I am asking about the general concept of mandation to effect change in the market, including with regard to the net zero aspect.

I also want to pick up on the issue of procurement, but with regard to the Finance and Public Administration Committee report that was mentioned, I should say that I am a member of that committee and I note that the Scottish Fiscal Commission expects the Scottish labour participation rate to decline by around 0.2 percentage points per year relative to the rest of the UK. As a result, the figure is even less than you suggested earlier, minister.

I have a couple of questions about procurement. Some businesses have asked about the possibility of more pipeline visibility. I think that you mentioned that many businesses will create a component product as an offering in order to make a bid, and that sort of approach would give them time to do so.

My second question is around the use of mandation to help to develop supply chains and further target net zero. We have seen comments about that from the Construction Scotland Innovation Centre.

Good morning, minister. I am happy to see that progress is being made. One of the good aspects of Covid is that it has accelerated something that was intended to happen anyway.

I have a general question. How confident are you that the organisational capacity and capability from an information technology perspective is in place, with particular reference to safety and security? You may have already tested that. We are talking about extremely important documents that go back a long way, and hacking is a concern for any organisation.

Have you given any active consideration to recording specific interviews throughout the process? Traditionally, we have note takers but, to go back to my point about hierarchy, a more junior member of staff tends to take the notes, which cannot reflect the nuance that a recording would do. Obviously, permissions would need to be sought but would you consider that? In other processes, every word is documented verbatim. It strikes me that note taking is still a potential gap.

To go back to the issue of culture, culture is the hardest thing to change in any organisation. It is well understood in a programme management context that the process normally takes years and involves values-based frameworks, staff training and all the rest of it. The issue has been well covered, but I have not yet heard you reflect on the issue of changing culture in a hierarchical organisation, where there are particular considerations in relation to the balance of power.

I realise that that is a slightly technical question, but I would like to hear your reflections on culture change in a situation in which there is a strict hierarchy, as exists in the civil service.

I fully understand the position that you are giving from a Government point of view, but, personally, I think that it would be beneficial to sit down and look at it from the exact opposite point of view, as well.

I have four questions, all on slightly different areas, and I will add an extra one, because I want to go back to a point that John Mason made about making a police report.

I realise that the nature of the issue depends on the circumstances, but where it concerns sexual impropriety or worse, I am very clear that people make a complaint because they want to be heard, and not because they necessarily will take the steps that will result in the matter ending up in court. What active consideration have you given to the possibility that the Government’s approach could have a cooling effect on complainants, which is completely the opposite of the intention?

Within the process and the culture that we have talked about, what specific consideration have you given to the complexity of having special advisers as civil servants? It is a slightly special challenge, because special advisers come in through a political route and then become civil servants. Obviously, civil servants have different obligations. It seems to me that that is worthy of additional consideration and reflection. What have you done in that respect?

Okay—this is my last question. Again, it is a wee technical thing. Within the process, how much active consideration have you given to managing the weighting of evidence?

We know that contemporaneous, third-party evidence carries much more weight than evidence that is brought out at a later period, but it is quite a complex and technical area in terms of risk. Have you given that active consideration? It is quite complex, and it does skew results.