Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with what you said about the human rights element, which will give a different perspective that should be enlightening. My question is, to what extent is the NPF already not gender blind, but fully aware at every step and every measure. I appreciate that this is a huge question to ask, but in general terms, what assessment—red, amber or green—would you give it?

It is a very interesting area but I will move on, as it is quite a big area, too.

This is my final question. In this evidence session and in others, we have touched on the lack of linkage to budget planning. My observation is that the means of measuring wellbeing in economic terms are still relatively underdeveloped—academics such as Rutger Hoekstra, the author of “Replacing GDP by 2030”, are still puzzling over that. Is the real issue the fact that our adherence to gross domestic product—because it gives firmer measures—makes it difficult to measure wellbeing and link it to economic activity, and therefore to the budget? Is that the real challenge, which we have to accept is difficult and have to keep working on?

I have given you a get-out.

I, too, was going to drift on to that subject, with your permission, convener. I was very interested in the SCVO submission, which makes a number of comments that allude to something that I asked the earlier panel about, which is the complexity of aligning national outcomes with budgets, and the situation being about more than that. Wellbeing measures are relatively immature in economic terms. You referenced the advisory group on economic recovery electing not to use the NPF, but instead using the four capitals framework. I have absolute sympathy with that approach being adopted, and with your comments. My question is this: is it not just really difficult?

I will carry on to my next question.

In your view, to what extent is the NPF gender blind? Do you consider it to be so, and, if not, what areas would you highlight where specific consideration is given to gender? That is a generic question for Mirren and a specific question for Ken.

I want to ask Jamie Livingstone a question that was asked at the tail end of the previous session. To what extent is the NPF gender blind? I fully accept the need to take account of the other protected characteristics as well, but I am asking about gender blindness specifically in terms of processes and culture. Gender blindness can often be part of culture without organisations being conscious of it. You reference Engender in your submission, so I would like your thoughts about that.

On that point about data, I noticed that Paul Bradley referenced methodology in his submission. I brought up the point with the Deputy First Minister—it seems like ages ago, now—that I did not have any sense that methodologies were being used. We have not really even begun to consider that whole area. I am not saying that there is a right or wrong way, but that is incredibly important when it comes to data. Furthermore, the lack of data is just as important as the data that we have.

Good morning, and thank you for attending. I have a couple of brief questions.

First, I will take things back to the top. We discussed earlier the legislation requiring you to have regard to the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. My general question, which sets aside some of the issues with the NPF that we have covered, is whether, in a perfect world, it would be beneficial to have something tighter than merely “having regard to” the national performance framework, along with a sexier name, clearer linkages and so on. These are national missions, so would that be beneficial? In other words, does the concept of “having regard to” allow agencies some wriggle room?

Before you come in, Tim, you referenced—I am quoting loosely—raising our game with regard to the climate emergency. What I am trying to get at is this. I fully accept your comment that, if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority, so if we had fewer national priorities but they were utterly compelling—climate change, for example—could it be advantageous to have something tighter than merely the duty to have regard to them?

You see the primary role of the community as being to generate ideas. That leads me on to my next question, which is probably for you again, and for Martin Avila. There is obviously a great deal of sympathy in Government and the committee with regard to such community-led initiatives; indeed, I would say that it is endemic. However, what if we look at it from the other side and think about risk? If we are talking about Government funding for some kind of partnership or initiative, there will be a really quite stringent due diligence process with regard to not just the funding side of things, but people’s experience in operating in such a market and the risk in that respect. We have seen community-based trusts come and go for exactly the reason that was highlighted earlier: people come in and then lose interest.

I would appreciate it if we could hear your reflections on how we strike the right balance between social and capital incentives, but also—this takes us back to the backdrop that money is not infinite—how we make an accurate assessment of risk.