Chamber and committees

I am interested in the nature of power and how it operates, and I used the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill as an example of how we got to a position in which, within six years, it never occurred to anybody to do such an assessment. I am not saying that it is the case that it never occurred to anybody to do that, but it looks like it, which seems quite incredible, so I find it hard to believe. I am sure that people asked that question and said, “Maybe we should look at this.” I am trying to understand whether there was a power dynamic at play. In my opinion the three organisations do excellent work in giving voice to women. Was there a power dynamic at play in which you asked that question and were dissuaded, or did you just not ask that question about looking at that area? That speaks to the issue of trust.

That is fine. I had one more general question, which is about wellbeing and economics, but I am happy to hear from Judith Turbyne or Craig McLaren on this theme.

That is QED on my opening question.

Good morning, everybody, and thank you for the very fulsome submissions that you made to this inquiry, which have been noted.

Rachel Le Noan, I want to come to you first. You make an interesting comment in the SCVO submission that it is about trust and power and who has it. You also quote the very interesting statement that trust and parity of esteem should be in “spheres ... not tiers” because,

“When you have tiers, you then have the whole issue around power and who has power and influence.”

Can you think of an example of where that has had practical effect and talk us through it?

My last wee question is for Lucy Hughes. Your submission is excellent. I have asked about this a lot. I will quote you:

“The collection and analysis of intersectional gender-sensitive sex-disaggregated data on women’s experiences is central”

and it carries on. I feel that, in the short time that I have been here, I keep asking the same questions about routinely disaggregating data by sex, but get no further forward. If we do not know what the position is, we cannot begin to move forward. It seems as though we are continually making decisions with one arm tied behind our back. We do not know what the actuality is, because we are not collecting the data that would tell us. Is that your sentiment? What do you say in your submission about the quality of decision making for 51 per cent of our population?

Good morning, and thank you for attending. Professor Skea and Lang Banks have both made comments about the local community. During the inquiry, we have had compelling evidence from the local community council in the Grangemouth area, which has indicated that it feels that there is a disconnect in engagement in the just transition process. Could both of you flesh out your thoughts about what a good co-design process would look like in the development of the just transition plan and, critically, what it would feel like for the local community? I can see Lang Banks on the screen, so I will go to him first.

Before I bring in Lang Banks, I will add another dimension. I do not disagree with your approach of utilising what you already have, Professor Skea, but in addition—this is for Lang Banks—is there not a risk that by scraping the data that you already have, you will miss key insights, for example, by not having a gendered lens to see how the just transition is or is not impacting on women? It is not just about women; it relates to diversity in all its forms. Perhaps you could add your reflections on that in your answer, Lang.

They say that you get what you measure. Therefore, the measures and data collectors frame what the focus will be—in other words, what you are going to measure and the collection of the data—so that we can determine to what extent success has occurred. I would appreciate your thoughts on that. How advanced are we in having in place real data collectors on a standardised methodology basis? In other words, is that quite easy to do, or is it still developing? I put that question to Professor Skea.

You make an important point about the feedback loop. Thank you.

I welcome Neil Gray to his new role. It was a pleasure to hear from my colleague Ivan McKee, who delivered thought leadership at the rate of a Gatling gun. His presence here is the back benches’ gain.

In our document written for Common Weal, we comment on the complexity of a wellbeing economic system and how multiple areas interrelate, not just in policy but through multiple lenses.

We know that Scotland is a member of the wellbeing economy Governments group. The group states that a wellbeing economic system should have a fundamentally gendered lens from the outset rather than treating intersectionality as an add-on.

Although I accept that the Scottish Government’s NSET contains a commitment to develop a wellbeing economy monitor, which in its latest iteration includes measures on the gender pay gap, that does not yet begin to meet the test of a fundamentally gendered lens. At the moment, we can have only a piecemeal sense of that. Our reporting does not routinely disaggregate by sex, or indeed a variety of other diversity measures. On multiple occasions, I have asked ministers to what extent and how the Government—and all public sector agencies to which it provides funding—ensures that disaggregated data is gathered. Too often, it is a well-meaning rather than a wellbeing approach that is taken.

In our report, we credit Highlands and Islands Enterprise for applying conditionality to its business grant support in terms of the real living wage and our fair work agenda. However, the Government conditionality does not go far enough in and of itself.

On a gendered lens, I would look for gender equitability in all public sector funding—in business start-up grants, procurement and so on. I would also look for early confirmation of the delivery of recommendations from the Ana Stewart review of female entrepreneurship.

We cannot and must not underestimate the loss of women’s contribution. New analysis by the Centre for Local Economic Strategies and the Women’s Budget Group found that the barriers to paid work encountered by women mean that £88.7 billion of gross value added is lost to the economy in England, Scotland and Wales annually. That is equivalent to the contribution of the entire financial services sector in the UK.

Sara Reis, acting director of the Women’s Budget Group, said:

“These findings further underline the hugely significant economic cost of systemic barriers to paid work for women—including caring responsibilities, the cost of childcare and wages undermined by the gender pay gap. What’s more, they don’t capture the social cost—the loss of connection, sense of accomplishment and?mental challenge?for women excluded from paid work is immensely damaging for both their individual health and the wellbeing of our communities.”

It is therefore not only in barriers to employment and the continuing injustice of the gender pay gap, but in the very approach to the design of public services, town planning, transport, access to education, women’s healthcare and so on that this becomes important. Even in access to our political institutions, we see that the prevailing attitudes still keep women from achieving true equality, which in turn causes further harm.

I close with a question to the cabinet secretary: do you agree with the challenge set down by WEGo and will you set out some of your thinking on it in your response?