Humankind Index
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-02703, in the name of Kenneth Macintosh, on the humankind index. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament warmly welcomes the launch of Oxfam Scotland’s Humankind Index; notes that the Humankind Index is a new method of measuring Scotland’s collective prosperity, going beyond GDP; commends Oxfam Scotland for what it sees as its participatory approach and for ensuring that seldom-heard communities are given the opportunity to state what really matters to them in relation to their wellbeing; considers that the people of Scotland place great importance on values such as decent housing, good health and clean neighbourhoods, holding them above purely financial and economic values, and hopes that the Humankind Index will be a progressive tool and deliver a framework that helps spark debate and helps policymakers make more informed decisions serving the real prosperity of East Renfrewshire and the rest of Scotland and supporting Scottish communities, individuals and the environment to achieve a truly socially just and sustainable Scotland.
17:34
More than a decade ago, when Scotland’s school examination system almost collapsed during the Scottish Qualifications Agency debacle, there was a revealing episode when, in the midst of the crisis—when a cohort of pupils and students feared that they would not get the highers for which they had worked—Scotland’s universities turned around and said, “Don’t worry. We don’t need to see your highers; we’ll take the assessment of your teachers.” Whatever their motivation was in saying so, the striking point for me was that the universities recognised that what matters is not the higher, nor even the grade in the exam, but the ability of the pupils who sit the exam, which is simply one way of testing or proving that ability and potential.
However, how often do we find that the criteria that we use to assess, to moderate and to compare become the goal itself? We need to be careful about the values that we reflect when measuring success, because more often than not we end up being shaped by that very measurement.
I do not think that that lesson has ever been more obvious at a national and international level than in the fallout from the banking crisis. Our society is crying out for a more ethical approach to finance, but we still return to the very criteria that got us into trouble in the first place. We promote the chase for AAA credit ratings, wealth generation becomes an end in itself rather than a means to an end and we end up promoting the values of greed and selfishness.
No one is suggesting that money is not important, but if we track only income or economic measures, we fail to capture the damaging effects of inequality and the negative impact that lack of control, low status and poor neighbourhoods have on many people’s lives. A truly prosperous society needs to value and measure health, happiness, social wellbeing, relationships, poverty, housing, crime and environment. A host of factors affect our wellbeing and if we ignore them our social progress and ultimately our happiness will prove elusive.
The good news is that both here in Scotland and around the world a range of alternative and complementary measures are being developed. Countries as diverse as France and Bhutan have shown the way in that regard with Government-led initiatives. I was no fan of President Sarkozy, but the work that he commissioned by Professor Stiglitz, which is a name that we are more familiar with here in the Scottish Parliament, has given complementary indices of wellbeing both importance and credibility. Closer to home, our Prime Minister, David Cameron, does not talk so much about happiness these days, for understandable reasons, but he is to be commended for at least beginning the process of collecting the necessary information through household surveys on social wellbeing.
Here in Scotland the national performance framework, and Scotland performs, is similarly a positive step in the right direction. Without wishing to be overly critical, my main concern is that it is still too focused on quantitative rather than qualitative indicators and it strikes me that the framework itself has yet to become a practical tool of government. As with much of the work that is going on in other countries, these new indices of wellbeing do not seem to be used or referred to as an active measurement and I am certainly not aware of any decisions here in Scotland that have been changed as a result of the national performance framework. That is just one of the reasons why I was particularly pleased by the work that Oxfam and a host of voluntary sector and other organisations have done in producing the humankind index.
I am pleased to have secured the debate following my motion on behalf of Oxfam, but I am conscious that several members and colleagues worked on the humankind index and I want to thank them for their contribution. They include Patrick Harvie from the Greens, Linda Fabiani from the Scottish National Party and, from Labour, my European colleague, David Martin MEP. I give particular thanks to Katherine Trebeck and all her colleagues from Oxfam.
I do not think that any of us is saying that we have finally cracked it and that here is the one index that can sum up the human condition, but the point about the humankind index is that it is interactive and participatory; it goes into our communities—in fact, it goes into our most deprived communities and asks, “What is it that affects your wellbeing?”
Few of us will be surprised at the list of measures that Oxfam identified as being important to most people: living in a neighbourhood where they can enjoy going outside; having a clean and healthy environment; feeling that they and those whom they care about are safe; access to green and wild spaces, and community and play areas; having the facilities that they need locally; being part of a community; having good transport to get to where they need to go; and being able to access high-quality services. On what are often regarded as harder economic indicators, the Oxfam humankind index shows that one of people’s top priorities is satisfaction derived from work, not work per se, and that security and sufficiency of income are more important to people than just having large amounts of money.
The result comes far closer to reflecting our values than the more often quoted but distant and anonymous indicators such as gross domestic product. I am grateful to the Carnegie UK Trust for circulating ahead of this debate a quote from Robert Kennedy, who said of GDP that, while it is useful,
“it measures everything ... except that which makes life worthwhile.”
I am delighted that the Parliament’s Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee is considering alternative and complementary measures of prosperity and wellbeing. The Glasgow centre for population health is doing pioneering work in the area. Later this evening, the Parliament’s Scotland’s Futures Forum will host a discussion on the same issue.
Scotland is already leading the way, but we could do more, and Oxfam’s humankind index shows us the way. I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth to look again at the national performance framework to consider whether it can be reformed and whether the link between governmental decision making and indices of wellbeing can be made more explicit. Specifically, I ask him to consider Oxfam’s work and the interactive way in which Oxfam asks members of our society and communities what matters to them.
Official recognition of Oxfam’s approach and official use of the index would send out a clear signal of our intentions and values here in Scotland. The values that we use to shape our criteria and measure progress can shape our goals and the sort of country that we want to be. I hope that we make the right choice.
A number of members wish to participate, so I ask for speeches of up to four minutes.
17:41
I congratulate Ken Macintosh on bringing this debate to the chamber. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the motion and in favour of Oxfam’s vital work in the area. As members know, it is common for us to receive briefings or points of view from interested parties on the debates that we have in the chamber, but it is uncommon for those contributions to be unanimous in their tone. The overwhelming and sincere support for the humankind index from groups across Scottish civic society is welcome and telling.
For too long, Scotland and the developed world as a whole have relied on GDP figures to paint a picture of a prosperous society. However, as Oxfam has succinctly remarked, GDP is a
“consumption-oriented and distribution-blind measure”.
Sadly, a high GDP and endemic and crippling poverty are not mutually exclusive but in fact often go hand in hand, as the growing inequality of the past 30 years in the United Kingdom has shown. A reliance on GDP figures and purely economic statistics by policy makers can harm the common weal, rather than helping to ameliorate society’s scars.
The Oxfam humankind index is specifically designed to avoid those statistical pitfalls in measuring the health of our society. To Oxfam’s credit, it has gone the extra mile in reaching out to as many parts of the community as possible. It has involved those on lower incomes who, unfortunately, feel disengaged with the political process and asked them what really matters in their life. We can learn a lot from that method of consultation and participation, particularly from the efforts that Oxfam has made to accommodate participants through provision of childcare and expenses.
It should come as no surprise that the index has shown that, for most people, good health, strong communities and a healthy local environment are the priorities. Perhaps the lasting contribution of the index will be that policy makers such as us will reach decisions on the basis of how policies will help to achieve those laudable aims, rather than purely on the basis of the effect on the nation’s finances. In our future policy deliberations, it is vital that we use the humankind index. We have been provided with a tool to help deliver social justice for Scotland, so I hope that we can use it. I support the motion.
17:44
I, too, congratulate Ken Macintosh on bringing this debate to the chamber. I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, which states that I am a director of Scotland’s Futures Forum, although that will probably become apparent as my speech goes on.
Mr Swinney will remember that, in 2008, when the global financial crisis was starting to unfold, we had a series of debates on that in the Parliament. All the parties accepted that the existing model had failed and that the things that we had to debate, the changes that we had to make, the policies that we had to develop and the decisions that had to be taken had to have a direct and positive impact on what was happening outside the Parliament.
That recognition—regardless of the differences that have developed over the years—is still there. That is why the debate on the humankind index and how we measure the quality of life in Scotland and more widely around the globe is important. It may seem like a policy-driven debate or a topic that politicians can talk about at the Parliament, but I believe that if we start to make these changes and then place policy development changes on the back of new and more effective measurements, that will have a direct impact on the lives of the people we represent—perhaps not tomorrow, or next week, but certainly in the future.
That is why I welcome the development of the national performance framework, which Ken Macintosh mentioned. Although that provides a good basis and foundation, we have not properly discussed the issue in Parliament. I hope that the work that we will be progressing shortly in the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee to look at the humankind index and the national performance framework will give us an opportunity to build political discourse about how we improve what we measure and make some real changes.
I am pleased to be involved in the debate and to highlight the work that is being done by Scotland’s Futures Forum in this area, to which Ken Macintosh referred—although he had me reaching for my diary, worried about what I was doing this evening, when he said that there is an event on this evening. There will be an event on 19 September, which is part of a series of events that are taking place over the next year about rethinking wellbeing. The purpose is to get parliamentarians and people outside Parliament to think differently, without the constraints that we sometimes face here, about the kind of country that we live in. I hope that parliamentarians will participate and I hope to be involved myself as that series of events moves forward.
We need to think about the medium term now, but we also need to scan the horizon for future issues. We also need to think about how we develop policy. However—as I have said—we should not always be constrained by the issues that we have to deal with in Parliament day to day, week to week.
I recently moved back to the area in Dunfermline where I grew up. The difference between what the area was like when I was a young boy and what it is like now is unbelievable. A lot of investment has gone into redeveloping and regenerating the area. I am sure that employment and income levels can be measured, but one thing that probably cannot be measured is the difference that that community and its environment have made to the people who live there.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that the member is concluding.
I am sorry, but I am over my time.
It is important to capture that difference—I can see it first hand—and ensure that we develop policies so that all our communities might benefit in that way. That is something that I would sincerely like to happen.
17:48
I congratulate Ken Macintosh on securing the debate and not only commend his motion but commend Oxfam Scotland for its valuable work in developing the humankind index.
As other members have mentioned, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which I have the pleasure of convening, has already done some work on the issue. Katherine Trebeck and Dr Dan Barlow from WWF came to the committee’s business planning day the other week to explain more about the background to the humankind index. We intend to take the issue forward and we are inviting Joseph Stiglitz to speak to the committee, which I hope he will do later this year.
The background to the issue is, as Ken Macintosh fairly said, a recognition of the imperfections of GDP as a measure of success. The point has been made that, because of how GDP is constructed, it will demonstrate an increase when events occur that might not otherwise be regarded as beneficial. For example, an oil spill in international waters that requires to be cleaned up will demonstrate an increase in GDP, but few people would regard that as a positive outcome.
The purpose of the humankind index is to find other ways of measuring economic success. That is being recognised not only in Scotland but much more broadly. As Ken Macintosh quite fairly acknowledged, the Prime Minister himself referred back in 2010 to the need to develop new ways of measuring happiness. In a speech that he made at that time, he said:
“The point is that all of life can’t be measured on a balance sheet, and no one put that better than Robert Kennedy more than 40 years ago, in a fantastic speech. He said that GDP ... ‘does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It measures neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.’”
The Prime Minister went on to say:
“Just as the GDP figures don’t give a full story of our economy’s growth, but give us a useful indicator of where we’re heading. So, I believe a new measure won’t give the full story of our nation’s wellbeing, or our happiness or contentment or the rest of it—of course it won’t—but it could give us a general picture of whether life is improving, and that does have a really practical purpose.”
I do not always agree with the Prime Minister, and many members in the chamber will agree with him even less than I do on most occasions, but I am sure that we would all agree that that objective is worth pursuing.
The United Kingdom Government has already developed the idea of general wellbeing. It was measured for the first time this year, and members may be interested to know that nationwide we have an average happiness level of 7.4 out of 10. We in the chamber can reflect how much happier we are than others elsewhere, although I believe that people in Scotland’s island communities are much happier than the rest of us.
The humankind index is not without its issues. It is inherently subjective and is based on the things that people come forward and say are important to them. In looking at some of the detail of what was presented to us, it seemed to me that there was some overlap between different categories, particularly in relation to topics such as work and financial issues. Because of the way in which the index is constructed, it would be difficult to make comparisons internationally with how other countries are performing.
Nevertheless, the humankind index is a valuable piece of work. It is also important to stress that it is intended not to replace GDP but rather to complement it. Ken Mackintosh’s motion states that the humankind index is intended to spark debate. I am not necessarily convinced that it is the answer, but I think that we should have a debate about it and about the broader issues. On that basis, I am happy to endorse the motion.
17:52
I add my thanks to Ken Macintosh for bringing the debate to the chamber and for his recognition of the small role that I played, along with my colleagues Linda Fabiani, David Martin of the Labour Party and Jo Swinson of the Liberal Democrats, who I expect will be at the Westminster launch of the humankind index when that takes place next month.
Over the years, Greens have been banging the drum in the chamber and outside about alternatives to GDP. In my first session as an MSP, my colleague Mark Ballard hosted an event entitled “Measuring what matters” to bring further debate on the issue into the Scottish Parliament, and the humankind index is peppered with similar phrases.
Greens come to the issue from a recognition that everlasting economic growth on a planet of finite resources is, first, unlikely to happen and, secondly, very often harmful when it is pursued at the expense of other things. We recognise that the pursuit of everlasting economic growth has resulted in a situation in which the material benefits of economic growth have been hoarded by the few or stashed away in tax havens, whereas the social and environmental cost of that economic activity has often been heaped on those who are least able to defend themselves.
GDP measures only the size of the cake, but simply increasing that cake is not a socially beneficial, environmentally responsible or economically sustainable policy. If we were to move away from that view and think about how the cake is shared and what it contains rather than just its size, we would, by definition, have to address questions of distribution, equity and sustainability.
Many of the themes that the member discusses and which have emerged in the debate fit in nicely with the people’s charter, which will soon come before the Parliament in a petition. I am not 100 per cent sure whether Mr Harvie has signed up to the charter, but I hope that he has, and I am sure that he would join me in encouraging other members to do so.
Absolutely. I will make every effort to attend the event that I know will take place soon.
As I said, Greens have made the case for a long time, but we are by no means the only ones to do so. Several members have already quoted Bobby Kennedy. I think that people often mention what he said because I have never heard the argument expressed better. It is worth reflecting on one or two other aspects of the quote. He was describing gross national product, which
“counts ... locks for our doors and ... jails for the people who break them ... It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman’s rifle and Speck’s knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.”
Few people have expressed the argument better than Kennedy did in that quote.
It is rare that I have the opportunity to quote with relish religious voices in Scotland, but the Church of Scotland’s commission on the purposes of economic activity has made crucial arguments about the subject. It said:
“We need to realise the importance of a right relationship with money, and that what is of value is more than simply money. There are problems caused in society by wealth as well as the lack of it.”
The commission said that these challenging economic times provide an opportunity to re-evaluate the fundamentals.
The humankind index is by no means the last word on the issues, as other members have said, but it is an important contribution to the debate, to which others have contributed. I look forward to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee building on and continuing to scrutinise that work. In looking at how the national performance framework develops, I urge the Government to take it clearly in the direction that the humankind index indicates.
17:57
I thank Ken Macintosh for allowing us to debate the subject. GDP is not a flawed measure, but it is definitely limited. Perhaps economists are more aware of its ups and downs than are those of us who quote it readily in public discourse. GDP—which has been around for about 80 years—is a quick and dirty measure of economic activity in a country. It was never intended to go beyond that, but it has been pressed into service in many roles for which it was not designed.
Even for measuring the size of the cake—to which Patrick Harvie referred—there is a rival measure, which is gross national income. That measures not the amount of economic activity in a country, but the amount of economic activity that ultimately accrues to a country’s citizens. In Europe, GNI tends to be virtually the same as GDP, but in Equatorial Guinea, where the GDP of $27,478 per capita is quite impressive by sub-Saharan Africa standards, the GNI per capita is 47 per cent lower. It is clear from that indicator that the people of that country are not the sole beneficiaries of its resources.
Similarly, we must adjust for purchasing power parity, because a loaf of bread does not cost the same in Blantyre in Lanarkshire as it does in Blantyre in Malawi. That further introduces the estimations and approximations that make social science an inexact art.
In the past in the UK, people often looked at productivity as an indicator in economics. However, as GDP growth tended to come from working ever-longer hours from the 1980s onwards, that indicator fell out of fashion.
Even with an awareness of GDP’s strengths and weaknesses—of which there are many—we run the risk of losing sight of what it truly means to prosper. The humankind index is not the first attempt to create an alternative, complement or supplement to GDP. Amartya Sen—the first Indian Nobel prize winner in economics, who perhaps does not get as much of a hearing in the UK as Joseph Stiglitz does—has spent a career on trying to develop an alternative paradigm for the whole of economics that is centred on the capabilities approach. His famous example is that, in the Bengal famine, there was no legal impediment to people buying food but, although the free market was satisfied, the starving were not.
That led to the United Nations development programme’s human development index, which combines literacy, life expectancy and other wellbeing indicators. Countries with a high GDP tend to have a high HDI, but the link is not absolute. One example that is often cited is Kerala, a state in India that is one of a kind in having a democratically elected Communist Government that has managed to remain democratically elected for a great many years. It has always matched developed world levels of health, in particular, with only developing world levels of finance. HDI is not perfect either, though, as it leaves out environmental efficiency and, frankly, gives high scores to countries that have not very free political systems.
All that shows that the process is still developing. HDI mimics GDP’s strength and is comparable across countries, whereas the humankind index is distinctively Scottish. However, I think that its greatest strength, as well as its shortcoming, is that it is distinctive to the priorities of the people in Scotland who participated in its development. Although it is unlikely to be the last word on the issue, it is the first, and it is a very useful reminder that progress has more than one dimension.
Due to the number of members who still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice from Ken Macintosh, under rule 8.14.3, that the debate be extended by up to 15 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended for up to 15 minutes.—[Ken Macintosh.]
Motion agreed to.
18:01
The fact that the debate is being held today is significant, as is the strength of cross-party support, along with support beyond the chamber, that it has secured. This is just one of the many ways in which an essential shift is happening in Scotland and elsewhere. I fully endorse the aims and sentiments that are articulated in Ken Macintosh’s motion, and the principles that underpin the humankind index, which alter the focus of our economic attention.
Why do we badly need an alternative measure or measures? GDP is the market value of all officially recognised final goods and services that are produced within a country in a given period. In that way, it is often considered to be an indicator of the country’s standard of living, but is it really an accurate and meaningful indicator of a country’s standard of living? Many people strongly disagree. Members have mentioned Senator Bobby Kennedy’s famous speech, which is stirring and important stuff. Perhaps the most significant thing about the speech is that, although it was made 40 years ago at the University of Kansas, few countries—with some exceptions—have adopted those indicators.
WWF Scotland believes that
“the pursuit of GDP growth alone risks undermining progress in other areas key to securing a flourishing and sustainable Scotland.”
It also believes that GDP
“doesn’t account for depletion of natural capital and doesn’t distinguish between expenditure that is positive or negative.”
An example of that is expenditure on hospital admissions due to air pollution. That shows as an expenditure, but it is not highlighted as an expenditure that we would rather not incur.
It has been commented that the business community would be opposed to a measure that is anything other than a direct calculation of capital, as GDP is now. However, economists the world over have begun to accept that GDP ignores changes in the natural, social and human components of capital on which a country relies for its continued existence and future wellbeing. In business terms, that means that calculating things such as the cost of depleting resources is rarely factored into budgeting which, in the long run, will lead to unsustainable business practices. Thus, an index that measures more than simply the gross product will be a help to business, rather than a hindrance.
The political engagement of our communities is at the heart of the issue. As a community activist, teacher and now MSP, I am keenly aware of some of what matters to challenged communities such as the ex-mining communities in the Douglas valley, in my region. Affordable warm housing and many other issues, including fresh air and being able to live in a clean and healthy environment, which have been raised by other members today, stressed by Oxfam and reinforced by a range of organisations from the Scottish Wildlife Trust to the Poverty Alliance, are all essential if we are to move forward in a positive way for the people of Scotland.
Many communities are looking to change collectively through transition towns and many other initiatives. As the Poverty Alliance has suggested, we must realise that treating people as
“passive recipients of policies rather than potential active agents of change”
is not the right way forward for Scotland. People’s voices matter and we must listen to them. If people are to engage more with the political system, having alongside the reporting of GDP comprehensible quarterly reporting on issues that matter to people, broken down into headline measures, would surely help with the connections between politicians and policy makers and the communities that we represent.
We could start by introducing two or three of the following measures, chosen in dialogue with communities: giving more prominence to the distribution of income, consumption and wealth; reporting on proximity to dangerous levels of environment damage; security of employment; and mental health and wellbeing. These and other measures should inform the Scottish Government’s budget and the direction of Government policy and action at all levels. The interface with the development and refinement of the national performance indicators is also essential, and I look forward to accepting Mr Swinney’s invitation to discuss the matter.
You must conclude.
The time for those alternatives has come. I know that we will move forward on this issue.
18:06
Like other members, I congratulate Ken Macintosh on securing this members’ business debate.
I welcome the publication of the first results from Oxfam’s humanitarian index project. The term “gross domestic product” must have very little meaning for those who live and work outwith the professions of politics and economics; after all, what it encompasses is certainly not instantly obvious. As the Poverty Alliance points out in its briefing for the debate, one very real problem is that people on low incomes feel that politics and the decisions that are made—and their economic impacts—are distant activities to which they have little chance of making any meaningful contribution. It is also revealing—if not surprising—that according to the humanitarian index more deprived areas seriously lag behind in community spirit and in the number of volunteers in those areas.
I am sure that everyone in the chamber will agree that it simply is not true that the success of a nation’s economy can be judged by the trade of paid goods and services alone. The measure of GDP will remain an important tool, but we also need to appreciate its shortcomings—not least its lack of focus on real outcomes from the spending that is included in its calculation. The Scottish Wildlife Trust is by no means alone in pointing out that spending in one area to counter the negative side effects of activity in another is not “growth” according to any sensible use of the word.
As a result, I very much welcome the new index as a complement to GDP; indeed, that is how Oxfam describes it in its conclusion. A wide variety of measurements will, in itself, offer a more focused picture of Scotland’s performance—and, on that subject, I am pleased that the Scottish Government takes seriously the requirement to gather and analyse economic data effectively in order to enable effective policy decisions to be made across the range of Government portfolios.
Ken Macintosh and John Park have referred to the national performance framework, Scotland performs, which has been described as the result of an “innovative” and thoughtful approach to calculating progress, and in the establishment of which it has been said that the Scottish Government and all other non-governmental bodies across business, local government and the third sector “deserve praise” for their work. Those are not my words—they are the findings of the Carnegie UK Trust and the Sustainable Development Commission in a report that was published last May.
What matters is subjective; many business owners will say that growth and profit—financial viability—are what matter most to the economy. On the other hand, when a typical Scottish family is asked what matters to them, they are probably unlikely to mention growth or profit. That is not to say, of course, that their wellbeing is not firmly entwined with private sector success, but it certainly demonstrates the fact that Scots’ needs and aspirations vary enormously. When consulted as individuals by the humankind index, people made it clear what was most important to them—health and housing were at the top of the list. However, for someone without a job, both might well be affected.
Once again, I congratulate Ken Macintosh on securing the debate and look forward to seeing how the index develops in the coming years.
18:09
It is customary to congratulate members on securing these debates and to remark on the importance of what is being discussed. It is a custom that is largely followed regardless of whether the topic being debated is of any real interest or relevance to anyone beyond the constituencies and regions of a handful of members. However, on this occasion Ken Macintosh has brought forward a debate in the chamber that is not just relevant, timely, interesting and important but potentially revolutionary—if Mr Macintosh will forgive me for calling him names.
Congratulations should also go to Oxfam for the work that it has done and for the way in which it has brought the ideas to public prominence. Oxfam describes the humankind index as being
“about valuing the things that really matter to the people of Scotland”
including
“social relations ... health and skills ... physical environment ... natural context, and ... financial assets.”
Those ideas are not unique to Oxfam—they are part of a wider and growing movement in research, presentation of information and campaigning that seeks to challenge how we value the real wealth in the world around us. Similar ideas have been expressed around the creation and maintenance of more equal societies, and broader measurements are critical to being able genuinely to understand and promote preventative spending measures.
As Ken Macintosh said, it is welcome that even the UK coalition, not a Government that is known for doing much to promote wellbeing, has at least signalled its intention to begin measuring the very things to which it is doing so much damage.
The Scottish Government’s own Scotland performs system is a welcome but limited example of those ideas being taken up by the state. Like Mr Macintosh and Mr Park, I am not yet convinced that measurements made in that process are genuinely driving policy choices in Scotland, but I am hopeful that it will become increasingly more useful. I also hope that the suggestions made by Oxfam—and supported by an impressive list of others—for changes to the national performance framework have been taken on board. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will say more about that in his closing speech.
It is a sign of the widespread interest in and appeal of the measures that, as others have said, so many organisations have sent members briefings for the debate. They include the church, as Patrick Harvie importantly reminded us, the voluntary sector and trade unions. Conversations around better and more real forms of measuring success and lack of success are commonplace in the voluntary and campaigning sector and also among health promoters, of whom I used to be one.
The Labour movement and before that the anti-slavery movement grew out of ideas that people were worth much more than their productivity as workers. It can be too easy for the left to glibly accept initiatives such as the humankind index and assume that they simply reinforce our own world view. In fact, the challenge is just as much to us and others like us who believe in decent work as a route to a better life. At this time, when, as the humankind index tells us, 43 per cent of Scots report a fall in their personal sense of financial security, job creation is a vital responsibility of Government. The view that promoting economic growth as measured by GDP is the way to do that creates a challenge for us, as it can reduce all policy decisions to what is best for growth, which can then become about what is best for business or best for Government. The humankind index encourages us to remember that the creation of a better country means better lives for people—not just a long dance with powerful and persuasive interests that is justified on the grounds of job creation.
Oxfam Scotland describes the humankind index as measuring what makes a good life. At the beginning of a new session and on a day when we have been debating the Scottish Government’s legislative programme, Ken Macintosh has done the Scottish Parliament a service by bringing forward the debate.
18:13
It is a pleasure to close the debate and to respond to the issues that were raised by Ken Macintosh and other members in the course of the debate.
I genuinely want to associate myself with the motion that Ken Macintosh put forward, unlike the custom that Drew Smith mentioned in relation to other members’ debates—a cynical comment for such a young man. I associate myself with the motion because it opens up an interesting debate in the Parliament. It gives us the opportunity to explore some substantial points that have broad agreement across the chamber and can enhance the way in which we assess and consider public policy in Scotland.
Ken Macintosh started his speech with reference to the exams difficulty in 2000, including the difficulties for the SQA and the fact that universities generally took the view during that period that exam results did not really matter. I wish that I had had that knowledge in 1980, 1981 and 1982, when I was awaiting a certificate with the signature of Mr Macintosh’s distinguished late father—the chairman of the Scottish Examination Board—at the bottom. I am afraid that I preceded the SQA and did O grades and all the rest of it. The exam certificate was nonetheless welcome when it eventually arrived with that distinguished signature on it.
Tonight’s debate is fascinating because it gives me, as a minister in the Government, an opportunity to promote the work of the national performance framework that the Government has followed since 2007, and to invite and encourage a debate about the effectiveness of and greater awareness of the national performance framework as it begins to address some of the aspirations that are clearly contained in the index of humankind that Oxfam has developed.
My aspiration for the national performance framework is that it aims to do what the index of humankind is trying to do. I do not make that remark from the point of view of a defensive Government minister. Through the national performance framework, we have tried to construct an analysis of national performance that is not just a report card about the Government. It is about all sorts of things, such as how people live their lives, how they want to live their lives, their aspirations, and their hopes in our society. It is also about testing whether our country is making progress year on year, month by month, towards achieving that picture. That is at the heart of the thinking behind the national performance framework.
I accept and agree with what the cabinet secretary says about the intentions of the national performance framework, and I welcome the inclusion of, for example, solidarity, cohesion and sustainability within it. However, does he acknowledge that there is still a strong perception that GDP is at the top of a hierarchy in the national performance framework? If the intention is not to place GDP at the top of a hierarchy, do we not need to refresh and reframe the way in which the performance framework is presented and understood in its application in Government, Parliament and wider society?
I suppose that that point gets to the nub of some of the difference of opinion that might exist around the national performance framework. The Government has chosen to put an improvement in Scotland’s economic performance at the top of its list of priorities. We came to that view in 2007, before the financial crash of 2008, and I think that there is broad agreement among members that, even if it was not relevant in 2007, it certainly became relevant after 2008.
Mr Harvie and I have chewed over the point in private and public on many occasions. We are talking not about growth at any price but about growth within the context of a range of other balancing factors, as Mr Harvie rightly said, such as participation in the economy, solidarity, cohesion, ensuring that we deliver regional equity in different parts of the country and, crucially, ensuring that we take due account of the questions of sustainability and our use of natural resources. The national performance framework is an attempt to bring together all those factors. When I look at aspects of the index of humankind as proposed by Oxfam, such as physical and mental health or affordable, decent and safe homes, I see approaches reflecting those aspirations in the national outcomes that are part of the national performance framework.
My response to the debate is a warm invitation to members from all parties to work with us on ensuring the strength, effectiveness and—crucially—longevity of the national performance framework. We have developed something that the Carnegie Trust and the Sustainable Development Commission assessed, as my colleague Rod Campbell said, as
“the most innovative and forward-thinking attempt since devolution to track Scotland’s progress and performance.”
We should be proud of that and prepared to build on it. The invitation that I give is that ministers will be delighted to discuss with members from across the parties the way that we take it forward.
The Carnegie Trust indicated that it was
“concerned that through the ebb and flow of politics ... there is a significant risk of all this experience being lost and the framework itself being abandoned either now or in the future.”
The Government has maintained the framework from its first term of office to its second. I like to think that, in the utterly unlikely event that it was ever to be replaced by an Administration of a different colour—heaven forfend—the national performance framework would be retained as a long-term measure of how the country was developing. I also like to think that it will be enhanced by the debate that we have in the parliamentary chamber and the debate and scrutiny that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee can devote to it. It has, undoubtedly, been enhanced by Oxfam’s work and the debate that Mr Macintosh has led.
Meeting closed at 18:20.