 Good morning and welcome to the 26th meeting of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee. I may ask everyone present to turn off or turn to silent electrical devices, which may interfere with proceedings. I have apologies for this morning's meeting from committee members, Richard Leonard and Gordon MacDonald. The decision item 1 is a decision by the committee to take items 5 and 6 in private, as the committee agreed. I welcome the Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy and his accompaniment, Heather Stewart, from his team, who is here to assist on the matter of subordinate legislation, which is the Renewables Obligations Scotland amendment order 2017, under the affirmative procedure. I would invite the minister to make his opening statement. Thank you very much, convener. Since its introduction in 2002, the Renewables Obligations has driven investment in renewable energy capacity across Scotland. Installed renewable capacity has risen year on year and now exceeds all other forms of electricity generated in Scotland. Our renewable electricity output has almost trebled since 2006 and, in 2016, was equivalent to 54 per cent of the electricity consumed in Scotland. As well as putting us on track to meet our interim 2020 emissions reduction target, that investment has facilitated substantive economic growth and job creation in Scotland. In 2015, the low-carbon and renewable energy economy generated £10.5 billion in turnover and supported 58,000 jobs in Scotland, of which in the region of 26,000 were in renewable energy. The costs of funding the arrow are recovered through levies on energy suppliers who pass those costs on to consumers through their electricity bills. As the costs of renewable support mechanisms are generally borne on a per unit of electricity basis, industries that are electricity intensive can see their costs increase significantly. This can place energy intensive industries at a competitive disadvantage when competing in international markets with businesses and jurisdictions where no such mechanisms are in place to support renewables. In response to that, in 2014, the UK Government announced that it would compensate certain energy intensive industries for the indirect costs of the arrow and the parallel feed-in tariff scheme. In the 2015 spending review, the UK Government subsequently announced a transition from a compensation scheme to an exemption scheme. Shaped by industry feedback, the exemption scheme is designed to improve investor certainty and the competitiveness of those businesses by providing greater clarity, certainty and accuracy of support. The Scottish Government supports measures to reduce the indirect costs from climate policies to help to ensure the international competitiveness of energy intensive industries. As such, we sought to ensure that energy intensive industries operating in Scotland can benefit from the proposed GB-wide exemption while we are redoubling our efforts to decarminise our economy more generally. However, in May 2016, we published a consultation seeking views on the proposal to implement the exemption in relation to the RO Scotland. That ran alongside a UK Government consultation, and together views were sought from businesses and consumers across Great Britain. Responses to our consultation showed strong support from stakeholders for a consistent approach to be applied across GB. A clear case was made that this was required to protect Scottish businesses from uncertainty and complexity. That could pose a direct threat to Scottish jobs and increase costs for consumers. Community amendments for consideration by the committee today are designed to avoid any such threat to jobs. That approach is favoured by a majority within the stakeholder community and is fundamental to the successful and effective operation of the exemption for businesses located in Scotland. However, I acknowledge the concerns raised by some stakeholders. Firstly, it is important to state that the exemption will not detract from the industry's efforts to reduce direct emissions and improve industrial energy efficiency as part of our wider whole system decarbonisation agenda for Scotland's energy system. Energy-intensive industries will continue to be incentivised to improve their energy efficiency through participation in carbon markets such as the EU emissions trading system. We are engaging with energy-intensive industries to support energy efficiency improvements through the delivery of the Scottish manufacturing action plan and the Scottish Government's energy strategy due for publication later this year, and with advice and support available from agencies such as Resource Efficient Scotland as well. Secondly and importantly, we recognise that non-eligible businesses and households will see a small increase in their electricity bills. The best estimate is that households could see a 0.2 per cent increase in their annual electricity bills, the equivalent of £2.30 per year and large-sized non-exempt energy users, a 0.6 per cent increase, which of course can represent a significant amount in some cases. Analysis also indicates that there may be a small increase in fuel poverty in the absence of any efforts to mitigate that. However, any such theoretical increase should be considered in the context of our wider actions to tackle fuel poverty and among households and to in parallel help businesses reduce their energy costs. The Scottish Government is delivering our 2016 programme for government commitment to make £0.5 billion available over the next four years for improving energy efficiency and combating fuel poverty through Scotland's energy efficiency programme. By the end of 2021, we will have allocated over £1 billion since 2009 to help to make Scotland's homes cheaper to heat and reducing the cost of energy bills for householders. This funding will be used to build on the measures delivered through a range of UK and Scottish Government programmes to over £1 million households since 2008. Our formal response to the final recommendations from the strategic working group and the rural fuel poverty task force was published in March this year. This confirmed that we would publish a consultation paper in autumn this year on a new long-term fuel poverty strategy. This will include proposals for a new overarching target once the independent review of fuel poverty definition has reported. This strategy will feed into the development of a new warm homes bill, which we plan to consult on shortly and introduce in 2018. This package of measures will work to offset any increase as a result of this amendment and continue our progress in delivering warmer homes. Convener, having carefully considered the views of stakeholders, the amendments contained in the order before committee today are designed to support economic growth, international competitiveness and investment in Scotland as we progress towards our decarbonisation targets. They will ensure that energy intensive industries operating in Scotland can benefit from the proposed GBW exemption and represent our continual efforts to support growth as we decarbonise our economy. Before I formally move recommending the order, I would of course be happy to respond to any questions that you or other members of the committee may have. Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Andy Wightman Just a brief one. If the statutory instrument is not passed, will the UK one cover Scotland? The issue that we have is that if the UK Government moves its own order, the costs will still be borne by consumers and businesses in Scotland but not have the benefits of the exemption that the energy intensive industries would get from our moving the order today. In answer, we would get the costs borne by consumers but not the benefits. Thank you. Thank you. If there are no further questions from committee members, I'll invite the minister to well, we'll move to the formal debate on the motion to approve the affirmative instrument and I'll invite the minister to formally move the motion. Formally move, convener. Does any member wish to speak in the debate on this motion? If not, I will put the question and the question is that motion S5M-766O be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. We will record the result and in light of the timing I would invite the committee to agree that myself and the clerk will produce a short factual report and arranged have it published. Is the committee agreed with that? In that case, I'll thank the minister Paul Wheelhouse and also the official from his team Heather Stewart for their attendance today. Thank you very much, convener. I'll spend the meeting for a few minutes to allow our witnesses to take their places. We'll now resume the meeting and first of all our economic data inquiry today. We have witnesses with us who I'll introduce in a moment. I remind members to keep their questions short to the point and also the witnesses in their answers. The witnesses shouldn't feel they need to answer every question but can indicate if they wish to come in by raising their hand. Our witnesses today are Matt Lancashire, director of policy from the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. Welcome to you. Next is Carlin Currie, chief operating officer at Women's Enterprise Scotland. David Watt, executive director of the Institute of Directors and Helen Martin, assistant general secretary of the STUC. Welcome to both of you as well. I would like to start with a general question. How useful is the current suite of Scottish economic data for businesses and trade unions? I'm not sure who would like to start in answering that, Helen Martin. Have I been nominated? I'd start by saying that Scotland has some very good economic data. If you compare it to other regions of the UK, we certainly have quite a number of robust figures that come out fairly regularly around GDP, on employment and on employment. Those are very useful measures for us as trade unions to use. We look at the data quite closely and use it in a lot of our work. It's fair to say that the statistics are also of good quality. They are well-pogest by the Scottish Government, by ONS. We would certainly recognise that they are robust and they meet national statistics requirements. That's an important thing to recognise. There are a few issues and there are a few gaps, however. The first issue is one about timing. There tend to be a little bit of a time lag between the Scottish data and the UK data, so even on the most well-pogest figures and some of the key indicators in the economy, there is a bit of a time lag in Scotland compared to what's available at the UK around GDP, for example. When you get into slightly more complex data in Scotland, sometimes the time lag can be quite great indeed. It can be even up to two years. There's also an issue with trying to break that data down beyond the Scotland level. When you try to look at what's happening in regions of Scotland or cities or at a local authority level, the data becomes much more patchy. It becomes more difficult for someone like me, who is more of a user of data rather than a producer of data, to really understand how the data sets fit together and understand how to really use that data at the local level. The key area for us, as the STC and the key gap for us when looking at data in Scotland, is around wages. The wage data at the UK is really quite good and we can track what's happening to wages at UK level. At Scottish level, that seems much more difficult. There doesn't seem to be the same range of sources and we think that that's a real miss for Scottish data because in the future we are going to have a lot more tax-raising powers. The amount that people earn affects the amount that they pay in tax. That data gap is likely to become much more noticeable and have much more of an effect on what we can do in terms of forecasting in the future. The last thing that we would like to see in terms of the improvement of data going forward is understanding the quality of work within Scotland. We have a lot of quite dry data sources. We don't necessarily do a lot of things that are about how people feel about their job and how well their job runs in practice. Those sorts of things are done at UK level but they are not necessarily done here. I think that it would fit well with the fair work agenda and the sustainable growth agenda that the Scottish Government has. David Watte I might make a few introductory remarks first in general in terms of some of the specifics later, but I suppose there are lies and statistics. Some of the figures are quite contradictory as well, which is a bit of a challenge and we will come to some examples of that later on as well. Although I think that as Helen's point made, we are well covered compared to some other parts of the UK partly because of the existence of yourselves in this building and that's helpful in the work that Spice does in some others, but it's interesting as I say some of the inconsistencies of the figures as well. I do think that the figures should really be used primarily to indicate trends and not necessarily to define policy at a certain given time. I think that there's a danger of that. I think that politicians with respect tend to get focused on outputs and not outcomes and that's quite a dangerous trend. It's a dangerous trend in business as well, I've got to say, and I think that that's fair as well. A short-term number of statistics don't actually help to identify where the country is going, where the economy is going in general terms as well. I think that there's an interesting comparison of having a no-BR in the UK that we don't have as well, which might be something to think about as well in the longer term. I suppose that it's finally just that we absolutely fixated on desire for evidence-based policy, but you've got to be quite sure where that evidence is before you start. So there's a bit of debate, as I say, about some of the statistics and I'll exemplify that later, perhaps. I really do think that we should be building policy in the future of Scotland through this building and other places based on some concrete evidence, and unlike certain politicians, we certainly do believe in experts. I would certainly echo some of those comments made by David and Helen. Our specific point would be that data should be incorporated to look at gender disaggregated data. The availability of gender disaggregated data in Scotland is extremely poor. It is also extremely poor at UK level. Our view should be that all economic data should be gender disaggregated, as a matter of critical importance. I certainly echo the statements that are already made around broader measures. We have an agenda that seeks to promote inclusive growth, but I would suggest that our current measures really do not help with that agenda and fall quite short. If we can't measure it, then we certainly can't change it or understand what's happening. I would certainly support any calls for evidence-based policy—that's utterly critical in data plays, a crucial role in that—and in terms of what the current model covers regarding wage and earned income outputs, we would most certainly be keen to see greater evidence of non-waged work being included. For example, childcare being a good point there. Thank you, and Matt Lancashire. I don't know what to say now, and I agree with everyone else that it's just open with. I suppose what it comes down to is that it's not generally reliability of evidence in economic sources. What we mean by that is that there are sometimes competing economic statistics that are around, whether they are from the Scottish Government or the UK Government, particularly on areas around exports, particularly on areas around sustainability. Sometimes that can get lost within the complexity of the economy. There is some clarity that is needed for people across Scotland, whether in business or in public, or whatever it might be, to understand what those figures are and what they actually mean. An example of that is quite simple. Our biggest people that we export to is the USA, but we don't understand who is exporting to the USA from Scotland, whether that's American businesses, whether that's UK businesses, whether that's Scottish businesses and what that means for the long-term impact on the economy and the sustainability economy. It's quite crucial for jobs employment as well as other factors as well. The economy has moved on in the past 50 years. Our measure is a GDP, which is a crucial measure. It is internationally recognised. It is something that shows whether an economy is growing or not. However, it doesn't have its limitations. It probably was born about 50-60 years ago when the economy looked very, very different. It was very much a goods and services economy, and that's what it actually measures. It actually needs to be more intricate than that and to understand that we are now in a digital revolution or post-digital revolution where goods and services are traded in very different ways in economic output, but it's very different too. So there are a number of things and tweaks that need to be, I suppose, support what GDP is actually measuring in the long term as well. Thank you. We'll now move to questions from John Mason. Thanks, convener. I think that building on how you've answered the convener, which covered the areas of strengths and weaknesses, is to understand it. Can you hone in on what specific improvements you would really like to see? Probably linked with that, who should actually be doing that? We've got some control over what happens in Scotland. We don't have complete control, although we can make recommendations for elsewhere. So what would be the specific improvements that you would be looking for and who might do that? Yeah, sure. I think that there's a number of ways you could do that. I think, in particular, right at this moment, it's time the Enterprise and Skills Review is happening as an economic data unit that is going to be born out of the Enterprise and Skills Review. That can support gathering some of the data, creating credibility amongst that data as well, and being able to support thinking on the economy going forward. So that's one route. Another route is from business itself to gain their expertise, knowledge and information, and get that ratified by certain Government representatives or a council of economic advisers as well to be able to ratify some of that information that's coming out of business and using that as a way of strength. I do think that the Enterprise and Skills Review gives an opportunity through this economic data unit to provide more robust data on the economy. I would add to that that in terms of our strategic framework measurement is a critical theme that runs through that document, which has just been relaunched. I should say that that's a strategic framework on women's enterprise in Scotland, and it specifically states an aspiration to pool and share data with our partners for consideration for further research and specifically recommending that public agencies collect customer data in a manner that allows for reporting by gender in line with data protection and equality legislation. I certainly think that that offers an excellent source of data in a collaborative manner that would help us to make some good progress. Can I just follow up on that point? Do you think that the data is all sitting there and we just need to get it out of organisations or do they not actually have that data? In terms of gender disaggregated data, the data is sitting there. It's a case of building a framework in order to get it out. In some cases, I understand that work has started, so progress should be already on its way. In the case of Business Gateway, Business Gateway was able to report in their most recent report that 49 per cent of the businesses that they supported in the past 12 months were women-led businesses. At enterprise agency level, Scottish Enterprise reported that 3 per cent of their account managed businesses, so growth-led businesses, were led by women. One of the things that Scotland honestly lacks is a really strong independent think tank, which would help us to be honest with you. Quite a number of attempts to establish that and haven't really been successful. Sadly, I think that it's something that we probably all should get together. Reform Scotland and others are playing a significant part, and I think that it's something to be welcomed there. Alongside Spice, who I think do a remarkably good job there, relates to stuff in business base, which I've got beside me is actually quite useful. Again, some of the figures that other people might not completely sign up to, but a pretty good and fairly accurate guide, I think, and most would consider that to be. Thirdly, I think that we still haven't really tied in strongly enough to our very strong university base in Scotland. We've got 14 of the best leading establishments of various areas and just how we get them involved. Obviously, this committee and others have used people like David Bell at Stirling and others in the past, and I think that light sea continue. Obviously, the phrase of Allander is another strong agency as well, so some coming together, perhaps sometimes of these and perhaps has been suggested through the Council of Economic Advisers might be quite a sensible way to look at that as well. However, as I say, the small problem is that sometimes these organisations all produce different figures, which leave us all a bit confused sometimes. Now, you used the term before I come on to Ms Martin about a think tank. Are you suggesting that these groups should be thinking about the data after it's produced, or are you suggesting that they should be more involved in producing the data? I think that there are two things, absolutely. Both of these actually, I think that the research that is going on at universities and perhaps we should both business and the Parliament should be supporting and encouraging universities to find some real strong data, not just OECD stuff on an inclusive growth, for example, has been mentioned as well. If that's the Government's key target, which it clearly is, then we need to be looking at the data that we've got, for example, because we talk all the time about wage disparity, and I stress some evidence not that long, where the wage disparity is not the issue. It's wealth that's the issue, so you then start to have a different debate, if you look at it in a different way. So we need to have a look at that as well. Yes, there's research, and also the Reform Scotland, what they do, is come forward with different policy options, slightly different, based on their research obviously as well. I think that we should be using universities sometimes to do the strong base research, which I know that spies do as well. That's really important, but yeah, there is then the policy development out for that as well. No, I suspect some of my colleagues may come into that further. I'll come from Ms Martin, and then I realise that Mr Lagesherr wants back in as well. A question of how it is that we produce more data for Scotland, I think that there is actually quite a key challenge here, because it does cost quite a bit of money to produce the kind of statistics that you might want to see if you were going to try to reproduce everything that we have at UK level at Scottish level. I think that the key here is to think about what the key gaps are in our understanding of the Scottish economy and what are the things that we really want to focus on, and then to think about whether or not we need to produce Scottish level statistics using Scottish agencies, or whether it's about boosting O&S surveys, or what's the best method of collection within that, and also what's the most cost-effective measure of collection. I think that it's important to recognise, I think, as the Fraser Valander Institute did in their evidence, that the powers in Scotland are not the same as the powers at the UK level. We can't require Scottish companies to fill in surveys in the same way, so it might also be about tooling up the agencies in Scotland to have that power to collect the data that we need, particularly if we're going to have much greater powers here in Scotland over the economy, because we do need to have a good evidence base in order to make those decisions, but there is always that balance and act about how we collect the data in a cost-effective way. You specifically mentioned wages as one of the kind of gap areas. I'm assuming that HMRC is sitting on quite a lot of information about wages, so do you think that it is a question of if someone else needs to collect data about wages, or is it just that we need to somehow get out of HMRC at a reasonable cost? My understanding is that there are three or four ways to collect wage data at the minute, and each of them gives you a partial picture. I'm not entirely sure that HMRC is the data source for wages, although it could potentially be. That's a kind of internal question for Government. I think that the best thing to do is to think about how well we can produce that data. From my point of view, I just want to see what the data says and then use it. I don't pretend to be an expert in what the best way it is to generate that data, although I think that there needs to be a good and robust method that allows that to be trustworthy and a good indicator of what the economy is doing. The best source is the one that comes from the ONS, the average weekly earning source, and I would like to see that boosted to be able to provide Scottish specific data. I'll keep this very brief. I think that there's an opportunity, I suppose, that if the Government collects the data and then that is commented on by others, that is one way that it can be used. I think that there's an option for business itself to be able to collect some of this data that can't always be calculated and fixed on finite economic trends and issues in the long term, whether that's on things like sustainability, wages, exports etc. There's an onus there as well to have that kind mark in some way to say, actually, this has been approved in where we buy a Government or another type of body to say, actually, we can't gather all this information, we can't disseminate it, but what we can do is trust other information in the economy that's had some kind of kind mark and been ratified and put forward somewhere else. So, it's how we best gather the data to allow comment after that, I suppose, and the more data we have and the more data that is, I suppose, ratified and is consistent, the better commentary we're going to get on the actual economic data. Okay, thank you. I'll leave it at that, sir. Thank you, and Dean Lockhart. Good morning to the guests. A lot of attention is understandably placed on macroeconomic data such as GDP and unemployment levels. I'd like to ask about business-level information and what level of information would be helpful for your organisations and also your members, your businesses, to improve their business performance, to expand their business and perhaps to move into new markets, because I think we've spoken about the high-level data, but it'd be good to get your own individual feedback about what's actually really useful for your business and your organisations. I suppose the quiet number of business areas is a very good point, actually. I keep saying, because I'm going to see less of the future every day, I get more fixated by it, and I think right now, businesses at a time of unprecedented probably change in a whole variety of ways, as well as the political changes that we've seen and are seeing, but also in terms of artificial intelligence and all things, which are gathering a speed that has never been seen before. I keep saying that we're going the fastest we've ever gone and the slowest we're ever going to go, so that sort of change does make it hard. Business always talks about certainty, and I know that policy isn't going to get fed up with that, and I don't expect you to forecast it, but the more of that information that Matt Scott just talked about that we'll have in the economy, it does make it much easier for business to plan. The business does need, first of all, what you need, to plan economic and government policy. It needs some real strong picture of what the economic trends are in Scotland and the UK, and indeed markets beyond that as well, so it needs to know how countries are performing. They're not going to invest in a country if you think it's not doing well. For Scotland, for example, and I'm personally quite concerned that we weren't about the demographics, and that, for example, is a general trend that will be important as well, so I think that sort of general background is still important. The macroeconomic picture is still important to businesses, and then beyond that there will be obviously very interested in economic data related to the sector that they're likely to operate in, whether that be energy or tourism, wherever that may be. So the more data they can get from Visit Scotland in that case, for example, then the better about what the potential market is as they bring a new product to the market, so that's pretty important as well. And obviously then there is the other thing that will be of interest to a company either existing or investing in this country, and that will be the level of skills available right now and available tomorrow, and that's what's the machine going to produce, if you like, the education machine going to produce for them in one, two, five years sort of thing, and that's really important. So these sort of figures as well are really important, but there still are generally available public figures first and foremost. Most of the very specific figures might well be around about, if you like, engineering markets and things. People in fare and oil and gas will be reasonably well acquainted with them, but it's how that fits in and how there are trends either locally or globally, and I think the other thing that's really important is to set this in context. For any business starting today, the global picture is going to be important because it's potential to export from day one through technology, so that makes it, and your competition is going to come globally as well, so it's quite a different situation, but that global Scottish and UK picture is really important, and trying to identify the trends and go back to my original point is that I'm concerned, if you like, that we're not quite, and I've suggested even to government before that we should consider a future think tank for Scotland, even within government, because actually what's happening is happening so fast now, it's really difficult to plan for it. You know, we are, and it's said by my favourite quote of us, pulled up at dinner recently by somebody, he said, bear in mind that a child who goes to school today will never drive, and that sort of bare bald statistic just makes you sitting back, okay, we are, we always say we change very fast, this is change we've never seen before, this is lorry's going five at a time down a motorway with one driver, so that it's going to happen in five years time, it's not something of a long way away, so change is coming very fast and business is really, I don't see the struggle with that, they have to adapt to that, but the more information they have at a local and national level is vital and important to them. Thank you. Yeah, I think I mentioned a few things that David's touched on around exports and such so, and the lack of data that's shining around that, I think one's more crucial in that sustainability in terms of how we measure that as part of our economic data, and what I mean by that is our current economic data doesn't pay the attention that needs to pay to the depletion of resources and assets that are available, whether that be in Scotland or the rest of the UK right now, and that's a key area for businesses to understand how they can grow, or not grow, depending on what the assets and resources are available to them, so getting more information, statistics on that would really support businesses going forward and give a longer term view to the economy. I mean, I think we would echo a lot of what's already being said, and I think actually we do use a lot of the macroeconomic data to give us a picture of the economy. We kind of, from our point of view, already have a picture of what workplaces look like at a workplace level through our members, and what we tend to do is then put that together with the macro picture, and then use that to create our full understanding of the economy that we try to have. I think that what would be helpful, though, is trying to replicate some of that understanding of what it's like in workplaces at a national level through a survey about the quality of work and about how people find their job in real terms in the under-employment and those sorts of issues being pulled together. That, in some ways, is what's missing from the conversation. We have quite a lot of that with ball trends about where work is, whether it's full-time, whether it's part-time, the types of contracts people are on, but we don't have that sort of understanding of what that means for people. I think that a lot of the political debate that I certainly am involved in is about me saying that it means this for workers and other people saying that no, no, it doesn't. I think that having some sort of actual statistical basis for that conversation would be quite useful. I would just add to that that at macro level, having the luxury of gender disaggregated data available to help us focus on the micro trends would be wonderful. Our first ask would certainly be that at macro level gender disaggregated data is made available simply to help us to understand and direct resources towards where the micro trends might be. In terms of micro data, data was released earlier this week around self-employment and the self-employed statistics. I think that there is generally some concern that the trend of more women starting up in self-employment is masking a greater problem with employment and the economy. This research shows that the gender gap in enterprise and self-employed is around 33 per cent, which is almost double the employment gender gap in the UK at 18 per cent. The greater focus on self-employment and gender disaggregated data would be very welcome in addition to some of the potential areas that might be leading to that trend becoming evidenced. It is utterly appalling to have a gender gap of that extent and this type of data helps us to focus and more of that would be extremely welcome. In terms of the economic agenda, we look at internationalisation and innovation as critical areas. Our research repeatedly shows that women struggle to get access to support on internationalisation. Again, greater insight and data available on that would be extremely helpful to us in terms of the support that is being accessed, the support that is not being accessed and how potentially we could collaborate to make a difference on that critical agenda. Likewise, with innovation, research globally continues to show that women are a key component in achieving radical innovation and yet again women's access to innovation. Certainly from our research it seems to be very slim at best and again a greater focus on access to innovation and its resources would be extremely helpful for us in terms of trying to increase the contribution from the economic potential of women-led businesses and would be most welcome. Thank you very much. If I may just follow up on a couple of those points and thank you for the very interesting replies. It sounds like there is benefit to be had in terms of getting more real-time information from business in Scotland to understand some of the issues that you have raised. However, there is a compromise between getting that information and adding to the regulatory and information burden on business. Perhaps I could get some thoughts about how to strike that balance. Is there an obvious compromise there in terms of getting more real-time information but not necessarily adding too much burden on businesses? That is a very good question and a very fair point as well. I face that challenge daily in trying to get information out of my 1,850 members who do not like to spend their time filling in the questionnaires that I send or indeed anybody else. It is a very real problem and I think that one of the problems that we have got with information is actually just the returns to the question that Mr Mason asked a minute ago about where you can even wage information and stuff like that as well. In Bluntlyf, there is a lot of legwork to be done and that point that was made by Helen about the expense of that is to you. It is. There is no short answer to research and accurate information that is expensive either by literally phoning around emailing, which is pretty ineffective, or surveying, which is even more ineffective for employers unless you make it regularly. I would certainly not be in favour of that. I do not think that that is necessary where we want to go. It does mean that there is going to be a cost to getting more accurate information, but I think that it is part of our investment for the future. We cannot plan for the future if we do not know what it is going to look like and how things are developing towards that as well. Indeed, business has to play its part. I would not want to come back from that, Bluntlyf, but I certainly do think that business has to shape up. We cannot ask other people to forecast the future if we are not, for example, speaking to the education sector and saying what sort of employees we are going to be looking for in three to five years, so we have a part to play in that without a doubt. I support what Davies says. I think that there are other ways of receiving information and data from businesses rather than just surveys at site traffic. It needs to be more focused on specific issues, specific problems and forming groups that can tackle those specific issues and problems. An idea that we have had at SEDI quite recently is to form our own economic data lab that is built from various institutions, including Strathclyde University in Fraser, Vallander and some bright new minds that bring them together to be supported by senior economists in some of our members' businesses to focus on economic trends and issues and build some robust evidence and research as well, which does not cost too much. That does not waste too much time that our members are also very keen not to do so, but also enables us to use bright young minds, look at key issues, get that ratified by senior economists in businesses across Scotland and present that information to be supported by Government or challenged Government, whatever it might be, and bring it forward. It is more on finite issues that we can see whether that is skills in oil and gas, whether that is exports, whatever it might be. There are ways of doing that, but there are just the customary ways of looking at things. I would say that most women-led businesses would welcome the opportunity to be engaged in research because currently data just completely misses them out. That is really the problem here. I think that there is a sort of a gain of balance to be struck here. I think that we do need to have a basis of information on which to build. If there are gaps in that, then we do need to look at what we can do to tackle them. The business needs to play its part, and if it is not, then we need to consider all the tools that we have to make sure that it does. However, I think that that would stand in making sure that we focus in on what it is that we actually need and that we do not try to create a lot of data pressures on people on what is necessarily very important. If that was clearly set out and defined that in some ways the conversations might be easier because we would only be asking when we really required it rather than having lots and lots of different people at different levels coming with different things. I think that that could be a part of the problem as well. I think that mine is about surveys as well. I think that it has been partially covered. We have heard from previous witnesses that things such as the global connection survey have quite a high no return rate. I am just wondering if you can shed any light on what you think the barriers to businesses completing those are. Obviously, the Scottish Government does not have the power to compel. You have said, Mr Watt, that you do not think that the Government should have that. Do you think that there is anything else that could be done to get businesses to fill those things out so that the Government has got the information that it needs? I think that the enterprise agency's state has a significant number of account managed firms, for example. I think that they would be a very good potential test bed, for example, for that measure that you are talking about as well in terms of global exporting and connectivity. So, while it would only be a litmus tester and a focus group, to some extent, it would still be worth taking the information from them. It may well be that, for businesses, part of their support from the enterprise agencies would be an expectation that they would reply in terms of some of the surveys and the things that are at it as well. I think that the problem that we have is, to be honest with you, that I genuinely believe that businesses should play their part. I think that, to be fair, bigger businesses probably do. The trouble is for our economy, with small and medium-sized enterprises, is that it is just the sheer time and, to be honest, with the sheer number of requests for such information that you get. Bluntly, all of you, for example, have got requests from British Airways and Google and whatever to fill in a form almost every night, sort of thing, personally. So, when you start to make that business and you multiply it by 10, it just gets overwhelming. It is even deciding the priorities of which one you fill in is a bit of a challenge, but I think that they will have to work in partnership with the enterprise agencies. I do think that there is a bit where we need to say to business, including ourselves, to say, really, you've got to play your part in this. If you want to have good information from government and others, you've got to feed into the process. Generally, I wouldn't embarrass myself by telling you the responses. We get some of the questions. We ask members that it's not high because it's just not what directors do. They don't fill in forms, they run businesses, and it's not quite the same thing, and it's a real challenge. However, I think that where we are involved in face-to-face discussions—and that's where I get a lot of my information and thinking from—in the same way, I think that the enterprise agencies could look at how they work with people to get that information, because they are helping people to explore, as indeed of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, with significant government funding. So, part of that obligation should be to feed back good information on the outcome of that work. Indeed, we're doing work in leadership programme with Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and they've put a fair amount of emphasis on us feeding back from the candidates and from the workshops and other stuff that we do, so that sort of feedback is important as well. Some of the issues that I was looking to ask questions on have already been raised, so I won't dwell on that. One of the areas that I was interested in as a behind-the-scenes MSP was the use of regional and local data and how it affects decision making both by enterprise agencies and also by businesses. I was wondering if you could expand on how important you think that region of local authority data can be and where the gaps are in that. As I happen to have, for example, the information in Dumfries and Galloway from NOMIS that I just was digging out recently was handy to me to more accurately, because Dumfries and Galloway have just put together some information around their borderlands deal that they're submitting to the Scottish and UK Government. I've read that particular information with great interest and it shows some real gaps in terms of age groups and education access and levels for that particular area, for example. Personally, it's extremely important that the Highlands and Islands, because Scotland, while a small country, is a number of population, is quite a geographically diverse country, and the number of applications of industry across your own area is extremely diverse. The impact of fish farming is massively important, so how we get information about that and where people are about their level of education and how the UHI initiative is still developing in its relatively early years. The impact that it has is massively important and that's what I've found, for example, from that information that I've just seen. I think that business organisations are to be more effective at actually understanding what the local economy looks like, what are the bigger and smaller indices and what are potential skilled gaps or indeed demographic gaps that you get from that information. I think that it's extremely useful. Something that local authorities should be really focused on as well. I think that, in your own area, to be fair, High do a pretty good job of that, but I think that it's really important. It also leads you to look at how, for example, broadband roll-out actually works and things like that and where the difficulties are, and that sort of infrastructure development is related as well. I would just add to that. Again, at regional level, gender disaggregated data availability is very poor. It's critical that we're able to get that line of sight in, particularly in many rural communities, often in rural enterprise and agriculture, for example. It's women that are leading the diversification on farms and yet unless we get that line of sight, we're unable to look at models or best practice that is working and roll that out across Scotland. I think that that is utterly critical. There is, for example, an excellent rural enterprise model in eastern Pershire called GroBiz. It's done a fantastic job, but, again, that data just doesn't seem to be coming through at local level, where those successes are, where that evidence base is forming and where we can leverage those models much more broadly across Scotland. Of course, I should add that GroBiz does have an excellent women's enterprise network as part of that focus too. We've obviously talked about how we can collect more data, perhaps on a national level, but are there particular things that we can do then at a regional level or local level to get more information, perhaps more suited and tailored to the organisations that may use it? Again, you've got a very good example, because I actually work very closely with Highlands and Islands Enterprise, so I think that localised information there is quite strong, so I think that that's really useful. However, I think that it has to drill down into, as I mentioned, it's also general information, it's also industrial sector information as well, and the needs, for example, of tourism and again in your run area, but many parts of Scotland is massively important, so what are the future information in terms of employment, for example, at the moment, and how that's going on and the skills that are required for that industry and a number of others going forward are really important. It's crucial that local businesses are engaged, and I'm not blaming other people, but businesses aren't as engaged as they should be. The point that I made about Highlands is that, as it does with us, where we work with them, demand the information comes alongside that. In terms of the mentoring programme that we're in with them, we have to give some fairly robust feedback as to what's happening, what the benefits are, what the outputs are and outcomes are as well, and I think that that's important, and I think that they need to require that of businesses so that they can build that case over a period of time. We're also working very closely with local authorities, all of whom have economic development departments, and that tying together is quite important. Then there is the other part about tying together with other significant companies, like, for example, ScotRail, who operate in areas, so they need to have good information about population and other things in terms of passengers and trains. It's actually all ties together. It's very important that the agencies and business work together to get the right information, but I think that the authorities and enterprise agencies are the number one starting point for that. There are two levels to that. There is undoubtedly the need for all the agencies and the public sector support to collaborate in gathering data in local areas, but it's utterly critical that businesses are engaged in that process. Also, specifically, local models of support, which can be excellent but sometimes seem to be disconnected at local level in terms of the reporting anyway and the feeding back of what's actually happening at grassroots level. I think that a dual focus on collecting data at agency level or acknowledged support level, but also those individual community models that are doing an excellent job and somehow that information just doesn't always make its way through. Currently, it's critical to understand best practice and have those evaluations feed back as part of that micro-level data collection. Just to quickly add in at the end of all this, each local authority area is different and it will look different depending on the information data that's involved. I suppose the question is what data is missing and what data is then needed to support economic growth within that area, and I think that's where we need to focus our attention and then how business can support in each of the local authority areas differently, I suppose. Faisi, to add to that, I think that the issue here is that actually there is quite a lot of data around at local level, but it comes from quite a lot of different sources. The local authorities do produce quite a lot of data and do look at quite a lot of data, but it doesn't necessarily leave the local authority. When you're trying to use that as a user of data, it can be quite difficult sometimes to understand everything that is known. Highlands and Islands is a very specific example because you have the Highlands and Islands Enterprise and they do a really good job of putting things together for that area, but if you looked at other local authorities who don't necessarily have that support, then it might not be as easy to find out that sort of information for that area. I think that there is something about trying to hide how complex it can be to try to put together all the different data sources to get a picture of a local area in the absence of that agency. I think that that is one of the key questions that we struggle with is about the amount of work and the amount of time that would need to be to put together that sort of picture because it's not easy to do at the minute with the data that's available. Can I just come back? Are there barriers in terms of using that data, even if it is available, in terms of the method, how it's collected and whether it can be deemed credible by organisations higher up the... One of the things that I would be concerned about would be the fact that you're using data from being collected from different places with different methodologies and different sources. That always raises a bit of a question mark in my head because when you're trying to put together data sets, if they're not collected in the same way and they're not talking about the same thing, you can be saying things that aren't fair and aren't true if you're not using the data properly. We try really hard to say things that we think are true and genuine about the economy. That, to me, means that it creates caution in my head when I'm trying to create local level pictures and local level commentary because you are having to rely on what the local authorities are doing, what NOMAS is doing, what ONS data can be extrapolated downwards. It's not what the Scottish Government is saying. There are lots and lots and lots of little bits and pieces of information that can be put together. That is very useful, but it's also very challenging. As people have mentioned earlier, we don't have the same number of think tanks working in Scotland. We do have some very good ones. At times, it can be quite difficult to put together those pictures in all the ways that you might want to. Maybe that's about my own skill levels, I don't know, but I think that there is something about how we present the data and how we ensure that people can use it because not every organisation in Scotland will have lots of time and resources to put in to build on that picture. I'm sure that if it's a barrier for us, it must be a barrier for other people as well. I follow up from Jackie Baillie before we come on to questions from Gillian Martin. I wonder whether I could go back to something that Matt Lancashire said and explore it a bit further. You made a specific connection between business needs and data collection in terms of perhaps the challenges that the economy faces with the data lab. I'm wondering whether the data lab—I couldn't make out from what you were saying—was it a proposal that didn't quite happen? Is it happening? Is it the reluctance that David Watt identified of people wanting to fill out survey forms? Is that overcome because you've made it quite specific? This is an interaction at this moment. At the time that it's part of our operation, I applied to get up and running at SCDI this year. We're in conversation with Graham across the table about how we look at doing this. There's a fuss from our members and our policy committee at SCDI to set up this data lab, which will be, as I said, bright young minds made up of Strascoide University students, perhaps other universities as well, to look at Pacific economic trends and issues that can support the economic data that we have out there or provide some of the economic data that is missing out there as well. It will be focused on what our policy committee wants, which is our members coming together and saying, right, okay, these are Pacific areas and trends that we need to look at, and then it will be ratified by our chief economist group that we're trying to set up at SCDI as well. That is one way of doing it and overcoming that, I suppose. It's not a lack of desire from business to fill in these forms, but it's a time issue and it's a barrier issue that they face, particularly small and medium enterprises, as was noted before. It is interaction. We hope to have that built in the next six to 12 months. That's where we are. We think it can provide some really robust information, whether that be at national and local level 2. That's very helpful clarification because I wasn't quite sure whether it's actually happening or not, but it's about to. It's so in conversation. I take from that. Something else you mentioned about kite marks, because I'm very conscious that we are data rich in many respects. There's lots of data there, but perhaps it's not usable in the form that Helen's described. I'm wondering, particularly when I look at, say, SE or high, they do collect a lot of data. Some might say that some of the data is presented in quite a partial way to tell a story about targets and achievements. How do we get to a kite mark who runs it and how would that function? I think that Matt, you raised it first, so I'm directing that one to you. Okay. I shouldn't have raised it. I mean, it's a good question. I think what I, the answer is that we don't know, and I haven't got a suggestion as to how to put that forward, and we can come back to you on that, Jackie. I think what we're trying to say by kite mark, it gives credibility and it gives credibility to the general public that are reading what's going on with the economy, businesses that are reading what's going on with the economy, and it's not lost in political wills and discussions and power. It actually said, this is the state of the economy, this is where it at, this is how much we're exporting, this is where wages are, this how many people are unemployed, this how many people are underemployed, whatever it might be. A kite mark brings some kind of credibility to the figures and statistics that people can believe in, and I think that's a positive. How that's done, we can put our ideas forward, we're not sure yet. Okay, I wonder, Carol. Can I just add to that? I think the great thing about a quality mark is a sort of standard analysis of data, and certainly from our perspective we would see that as a very efficient way forward, and I think that that's one of the issues that everybody's really raised today, is that time that it takes to wade through lots of data, therefore I would see a standardisation or a quality mark offering greater efficiency in terms of being able to look at that data, understand it and have an encompassing view, for example, that reaches across all of the public sector agencies would be terrific, instead of having to wade through individual reports and try to to pull out comparisons, having that readily available and a quality standard would be terrific. David Highland? Farby, from me to disagree, but I'm lasting. I want, as a kite mark given by the government, to say that their own statistics are actually accurate, sort of thing. I don't quite know where this kite mark would come from, but I would suspect that the University of Strathclyde might think that the data that they publish is actually fairly robust to be honest with you, so who's going to kite mark a very interesting thing? I think that we probably all accept, for example, as the Office of Office, it will be our statistics, generally speaking, because they don't always go in line with government policy. We probably mostly accept OECD figures already, sort of thing, but I think that it would be difficult to see Scottish Government or indeed UK Government issuing figures that we're all going to believe or indeed being the responsible body for issuing the kite mark. I think that there would be a bit of cynicism about that at best, so I think that we've got a number of robust organisations who do it. The point about the co-ordination that I absolutely get, and that's going to be difficult when it does take a bit of work-leg work to go through various statistics as well to try and get an assessment and probably a middle point between some of the figures that are mentioned. I kind of feel like we already have this as a concept. I mean, national statistics are widely recognised as good quality statistics, and if it is a national statistic product, then in my mind that is a figure that you can trust, and it means that it's got a robust methodology—primarily it's about methodology—and that means that the statistic is—I mean, if that has been drawn into question by political debates, then I think that that's something that we all maybe need to reflect on, but it is those products that were recognised as statistics that could be relied upon. I think that there's something different about how that data is then presented and used, but I do think that we do already have a system where we know if something is a national statistic product or not. I think that my point was that if you're extending the collection of statistics to other public bodies and, indeed, to the business sector, how do you know that those statistics are reliable? That is inevitably a question. Thank you. Then we'll come to Gillian Martin's question. Yeah, I should add, you know, people like Fraser Valor and Mackay consultants, Niwai Scottish Item Club, all produce independent statistics, and there's certainly no challenge to those credibility of that going forward. I also think that there's an opportunity with the Scottish Fiscal Commission as well to look into some of this type of work as well going forward, is what I'd add. Thank you, convener. I'm going to quote from Women's and Enterprise's report this year. One of our key friends said, this study found opportunities to raise economic growth and reduce equality are being missed by nations, including Scotland, as existing models that guide policy makers remain unadjusted for gender equality. I want to pick up on one particular policy, which is, hopefully, designed, certainly, to address that in part, and that's the roll-out of increased childcare provision. I want to ask the panel if you feel that the data that exists in its current form is adequate to be able to analyse the economic effect of a policy like that, just as an example. My specialist subject. Yes, that was certainly part of our report. We were looking at global comparators in terms of data collection, and that quote came from the World Economic Forum's Inclusive Growth and Development report in 2017. The key point that it was making was that annual median capital income declined across all advanced countries by an average of 2.4 per cent over the past five years, and growth capital average less than 1 per cent, which they said was in part due to wealth inequality. We would say that models that are currently used to evaluate a nation's productivity or growth do not include some of the unpaid work that is done that is critical to any nation being able to get out to work on a daily basis. Childcare is a key component in that. It is not included in traditional measures such as GDP. Therefore, in economic terms, it represents work that is being undertaken but is not being seen or counted when we look at the overall contribution that is being made by a nation economically. In short, it is failing. We have a situation where, just to take that one policy, childcare is going to be doubling and that is going to have an economic impact on more than just an individual in a household. Do you think that with the data that we have and the way that it is laid out, it is sufficient to be able to analyse the effectiveness of, just as an example, that one policy or any other kind of inequality is decreasing measures that are put in place as it stands? I think that, to be tracked and seen, it needs to come into the greater body of the curriculum and be looked at in the context of economic data and at a critical measure of the success of a nation economically. That is where the disconnect is at the minute. You can have policies that change that, but unless we are able to access the data and look at it in the context of economic output, the two simply will not come together and we will fall short in terms of the general impact that such a great policy could potentially be having. Why is it wider than childcare? I think that it is welfare in general. GDP growth—we certainly see this at SCDI increasingly—underestimates increases in welfare provision or support. It also underestimates the blurring now, I suppose, between the leisure time and work time and how that impacts on the economy. I think that it is crucial that we start to understand how GDP growth is enhanced by welfare and social welfare as well. Yes, Helen Martin wants to come in. I think that your question is a very interesting one in that you are effectively asking whether we can use economic data to look at whether or not a policy is supporting our economy in a very real and tangible way. We put decks in and we get why out. I think that we do not do a huge amount of that about any policy. We do not spend a lot of time going that this is what the Government has changed and what has the impact been on the economy. That is something that we need to do a wee bit more of. Certainly, there are other policies that I think could benefit from genuine economic scrutiny—for example, we always use the small business bonus scheme—but childcare is worthy of that attention, too. It is one of the questions around the childcare policy that the Government has been pursuing. To what extent does it support work? Ultimately, if you are going to see a big economic benefit from the childcare policy, you need to see women going back into work. I am not convinced that the childcare policy to date, although we have not quite doubled it yet. The half-day provision is necessarily letting people go back into work in real significant numbers to see that coming through in the economic data. Whether or not that changes when you make it more like a full-day provision, I do not know, because you are still only talking about the school day. We know that there are a lot of challenges working around the school day, and most women have to take childcare on top of the school day in order to work. In that respect, there is still a question mark about how much you will see this policy impact to economic data, because it may not quite do the things that we think it will do in real terms, because it can be very difficult to get a job that supports that kind of nine-to-three model. At the same time, that does not mean that it is not a worthy policy. I think that it is a worthy policy in lots and lots of ways, and educational support for children is a big element of it as well. One of the other things about the policy was that it always had that schizophrenic thing about it. It was, in some ways, economic, but it was also about children and wellbeing and other things. Where this debate takes me is that we think about things in silos. We have an economic debate over here that is about GDP and productivity and stuff, and then we have a well-being and educational debate over here. We need to have a better understanding of our economy, and we need to think more about wellbeing measures within our economy so that we could properly interrogate the effect of a childcare policy. I guess that what I am driving at is that it is about looking at social inclusion as an economic benefit. If the data that we already have, through all the various streams of data out there, could be adjusted—maybe Carolyn is obviously talking about gender desiguration—in order to pull out some of that, I would say, quite critical information. I guess that is what I am throwing out for you all to answer. I think that it is a great question and a great example of how we should be trying to measure the longer-term outcomes of policies that Government has come up with. I think that most people would applaud that policy, but it actually becomes available when it ends up in real terms costing and what impact it has that we should absolutely be measuring as well. There are also other interesting issues. If we had school clubs from three to five, would that be another option? There is a policy option, as opposed to just even if you want the same impact or other policies that might have achieved that impact. That is something that you have to measure beside as well. Another interesting thing that is probably contentious with some of you, but if we are wanting to look at childcare and its impact, we also have to set it beside employment opportunities. That includes being a wee bit cautious about going mad about zero-hours contracts. It also goes to the City of London throwing Uber out. If you want to drive an Uber taxi and speak to the Uber drivers, it is a fantastic experience, and I will just quote one that I spoke to very recently. He is a Uber driver specifically so that you can look after his young children in order to allow his wife to go out to work so that you can go back again at night and go out to work because that suits his life at that particular point. I think that we need to look at different types of lifestyles and not just about childcare in the traditional sense. That is an impact as well. You are also touching on some of the issues that we had around, some of the work that we have done around the gender pay gap, is that we found it quite difficult to get from our witnesses in front of us and the economic analysis on how reducing the gender pay gap and we could put any kind of pay gap in there. How reducing that actually had a positive economic impact on our nation as a whole. Things such as the availability of flexible working and the availability of childcare had an economic impact, but quantifying it is something that we are all finding quite difficult to do, and a few of you are nodding. I am just a bit interested to hear your thoughts on that too. The point that I am making just as I incredibly agree with you is to do with job availability and job structure, which is changing. As the two examples that I quoted, it is changing radically. That too is in the mix of how childcare, when childcare is arranged as well, when people actually work in this—well, I know that people don't like the phrasegig economy—I don't like it either, but it's a different economy where we're in and we're moving into, and then where childcare is going to be a different potential model as well. I hope to allow you to do what you want to do, because it's absolutely a major lever to not only increase the economic impact of a better gender balance workforce, but it could have a lot of massively important side effects in terms of the young people that it's looking after as well. I think that the point is that the current models really are falling short. I think that we've identified a number of ways in which they're falling short at the minute and require different data to come together to boost our insight and how we look at success as a national economic measure. I think that there are some great examples of models that are doing that already. Businesses in whatever form they are rely on people, whether that's people actually doing jobs or whether that's people coding and developing the next round of automation that's coming in. One model is the Human Development Index, which takes into account a vast array of measures beyond the traditional monetary measures that include life expectancy, literacy, education, for example, and standards of living, all of which have a key impact at national level, but are not always hitched up to our views of economic success. I think that taking a much broader view of economic success, looking at some of those measures, looking at gender equality, looking at the elimination of poverty, giving a much more rounded view of success as a nation. I think that that is the type of direction that we need to be heading in here and looking to. I completely agree with Evan that Caroline has said, but we must not forget that economic growth is essential for all that, as well as a key contributor to happiness and wellbeing. Can I just come back and say that I think that it's absolutely essential that we think about measures of wellbeing? As the points from David Wat just highlighted, you can find yourself in a situation in which you're talking about people moving into very insecure work as being very positive. While they're in work, aren't they? Work is good, and that contributes to economic growth, ergo, all as well, in our economy. If you look at what people's experience are of that work, it can be very negative. The evidence suggests that we've done anyway that it doesn't support women to look after their children, even though it is a flexible work. The income cannot be relied on, so you can't pay your childcare bill. If you don't know that you're going to get a certain amount of hours every month, women report that they don't use those sorts of contracts to support their childcare, because it's not a very good way to do that. We really need to focus on issues such as the quality of work and how our economy functions for people. It isn't really good enough to just have bold economic statistics that look positive if the reality and what your constituents are saying to you and what my members are saying to me is extremely negative. That's not the sort of economy that I want to live in. At the end of the day, that's why we're collecting the data. It still understands people's lives. Hence, the data around increased self-employment, as has been mentioned, is not enough just to look at that. You need to look at why. The Scottish Government's got four economic priorities in investment and nationalisation, innovation and inclusive growth. In a general sense, does the economic data that we have enabled us to assess whether we're delivering on those priorities? Specifically, Matt and STCDI's evidence you single out stats on trade and manufacturing are poor. I'm just wondering how important the fact that they are poor is and whether, in fact, it is feasible to improve them, I think, of cost and effort, principally. David, in your opening remarks, said that you were going to give us a couple of very specific examples. I'm not sure if you have incorporated them to date, but it's an opportunity for you to put them on the record. I'll take the first question. That's okay. It's directed towards me. Trade and manufacturing, we mentioned our evidence that the statistics are poor. I started early on in this debate and said I mentioned on exports and information being poor in terms of where we're exporting to, who's exporting etc. In terms of having that information, it allows companies and businesses to judge whether trading with, who they're trading with, what type of manufacturing industry, where the growth industries are, what sectors to invest in, where they're next to locate, all these different questions, whether skills and employees are going to come from, it's a growing sector industry, whatever. Having more information around trade and manufacturing to see the sectors that are growing, to see the sectors that are declining, maturing, new industry is all positive in terms of being able to plan for the future and sustain the economy, so it's quite crucial that we get better data at that. What was your second question again, Andy, on that? There was something else, wasn't there, that he? Nope. Is that enough? Fair hand, that would have been my first point. If you read every bit of documentation read about Scottish exports, I'll say that the data is not robust. As the opening remark indeed in the SPICE report I talked about as well, how many businesses are exporting and things like that, the data is just not robust. Again, I suspect that it's about returns and it's also about, well, even for example, we talked significantly about food and drink exports that have risen significantly, but the vast majority of that is still whisky. Not knocking it, it's very important, it's very good, but it's a massive impact for Scotland. We have to be looking for other exports, so that information needs to be quite deeply interrogated to scratch down as Matt talked about. That's one area as well. Other couple of interesting challenges had me time to go round the table and ask you if you could tell me how many businesses there are in Scotland is my good example of it, because the answer to that varies between £270,000 and £330,000. That's quite a big variation, to be honest with you. Then, my other favourite question of the moment—I'll be relevant, I think, given the discussion in this Parliament at the moment—is a number of higher rate taxpayers in Scotland as well. The debate there is somewhere, it depends who you believe, the Scottish Government's got a figure, the PWC's got a figure and the HMRC's got a figure and there's 7,000 between them, which is quite a significant difference when PWC started at 12,000 and the Scottish Government will tell you it's 19,000 and such a thing and the HMRC will probably tell you it's 17,000. That figure is quite important when we're actually trying to plan or you're trying to time taxation policy, we're probably a significant debate with a disagreement with a number of you in that front, but the principle is how do you make policy when you don't actually know what that number is and what they may pay in order to produce what figure, so how do you budget on that basis? That's a very good, classic example of where we are just now. We also export, particularly financial services to the rest of the UK, then that export further on. Again, that's not another measurement that we're currently putting into place to support our economic trends and planning as well. Thank you, I apologize to Matt. The second part of my question was actually about, is it feasible to be able to overcome the deficiencies in trade and manufacturing important export without disproportionate cost and effort? I mean, is that a subjective judgment, if you like, as to whether we're going to be able to practically do anything about that? I mean, there are things around at the moment like the Scottish export statistics and others, that kind of measure exports and front-trade and manufacturing. To overcome it, I think there's opportunities, as I mentioned earlier, on the enterprise and skills review to look at how we gather this information better and clearer in the future. I think I mentioned other opportunities about businesses becoming more involved in sharing that information as well for various different means that I think David alluded to and I did earlier on as well, but I think there are a number of options already there in the Scottish Fiscal Commission as well as another way to be able to gather this more information going forward. I'm tempted to say that if we have a hard Brexit, it will be much easier to measure because it will take so much longer. We'll all have bits of paper flying all over the place, but I'll part that political comment for a moment. I think that the good news for all of us is that we're moving to a world of data in this city in particular, where data labs already operate. Gradually, over time, it will be much easier to put some fairly basic various sources of information into a computer that will give us a median point, if you like, and some of the information that we're talking about as well. Little pieces of data will be much more easy to collect, and that's already starting to happen. Data science, bluntly, is probably going to be the science of the next 10 years, so I think it will gradually get better inevitably because all these little bits will be more easily gathered, and Matt has already said that SEDI is going to be at the forefront of doing that, and I think that that's welcome, but I think that, literally, some of the academic institutions in this city are going to very specifically look at that in the future, and I think that that will be very helpful as well, and it will definitely get easier once it comes in as well. I'd just like to say, I guess, that the three eyes of investment, internationalisation and innovation is the evidence that they're absolutely not in gender-specific terms, therefore how on earth can we measure the gendered impact and the impact for women-led businesses. In fact, again, the research that we do suggests that women struggle to access investment, internationalisation and innovation, so there is a huge need to sort it at macro-level, never mind actual micro-level data. The macro-level data is missing. Is it feasible to collect it? Yes, we're collecting it already, and it is a case of gender disaggregating the existing data that is already available, as a matter of urgency, I would say, in terms of the economic agenda, and there are certainly opportunities, as has already been said in the enterprise and skills review. However, for the eye that represents inclusive growth, the inability to measure gender disaggregated data in economic terms is really an act of self-harm for that agenda itself. How can we expect to measure the impact of this economic policy if we cannot access gender disaggregated data on key economic measures? We'll come back to John Mason to conclude with a couple of questions. I think mainly a technical issue. We had some evidence before that, obviously, the organisations producing data are under budget pressure, like everyone else, and maybe had fewer people there to produce the data and answer queries and that kind of thing. I mean, a kind of basic issue would be, is it on a spreadsheet that you can then use the data more easily, or is it on a word that is not? Is that an area that concerns you, or have you had any problems with, getting the data and using it and going back with queries? Again, we had a suggestion from one witness that, if they went to ONS with queries, they got quite a good response. If they went to HMRC with queries, they didn't get such a good response. I'm not surprised by that comment, I must admit. I think that I'm fair to the Scottish Government, and through the office of the chief economist, they are starting to produce more information on data. I think that SPICE is similarly doing that, so we are getting more information. I don't think that it's particularly difficult to interpret, as sometimes, as you mentioned, it's difficult to get. I think that one of the issues that you mentioned earlier on by a couple of us is timescale as well. Some of the data that we're working on is quite aged. Some of it is also quite confusing in terms of even when we talk about employment. Some of the employment figures are sometimes quite difficult to interpret. Even the underlying patterns, for example. Would you like more analysis, if that's coming from HMRC? Would you like them to be doing a bit more analysis on that, rather than just giving you raw data? Yeah, absolutely. I think that it would help us all. I think that Carline's been quite a lot of points about gender. There's a number of points about wage levels and things like that as well. For example, I think that it would be quite interesting—personally it would be quite interesting—that we would develop a Scottish tax code as to what the balance of Scottish tax payers actually is and how wage levels in Scotland do really compare with the rest of the UK. It's quite an important factor for the economy going forward, so absolutely. I would just add. I think that there's something about a standard dashboard being developed for data. One of the issues that we have is that many different sources and the lack of using perhaps standard methodology or understanding what methodology is underpinning it all in the time that it takes in order to try to make effective benchmarks and assessments on that data. I think that there's something in what Matt Mac was saying earlier about some standardisation or looking at data and how it's presented in a manner that is much less time consuming to look at. That would be my point, I guess. Is your feeling that there's progress being made on that gradually, or is it just getting worse, or is it much the same as it's been? No progress. Just on the commentary point, it is useful to have good commentary around economic data, but the commentary needs to be quite neutral and quite genuine. The O&S, for example, does really great commentary around their data, but it isn't useful if the data becomes a presentation of why our policies are correct, which, when you bring it into Government departments, it might well become that. I agree. Getting the data can be difficult from agencies, et cetera, whoever they might be, and going back to what I said earlier about the standardisation and supporting that going forward, but there's also a key bit around the commentary that comes after these figures are released or announced. They're humanised in a way so that SMEs can understand various businesses and understand what's going on, and an opportunity for business and wider civic societies so that they'll be able to comment on these figures that are credible and have some kind of chygmar attached to them as such. Thank you very much to our witnesses. Thank you for coming in. I would remind witnesses if there's any issue that's been raised that you would like to give further written submission on, please feel free to do that. Thank you again, and I'll suspend the meeting and move to private session now.