Chamber and committees

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?

To ask the Scottish Government what steps are being taken to improve effective communication and collaboration between health and social care providers. (S6O-02111)

I thank the minister for her response and for outlining those areas.

I have been contacted by a number of constituents who have been discharged without an appropriate care package being in place. I have had cases relating to NHS Forth Valley and heard about experiences in other health boards such as NHS Lothian. Given the adverse impact that such discharges have on service users and their families, and the commitment to quality service integration, some of which she has already outlined, will the minister give more detail about the specific work that is being undertaken to reduce such instances?

Good evening. Thank you for joining us at a time that must be very late in your day.

I am thinking about the similarities between Scotland and New Zealand. I often say that the best thing about Scotland is that everybody knows everybody, and the worst thing about it is that everybody knows everybody. We tend to find that we bring in similar representatives and panels, so we work very hard to try to get different people. Sometimes, that is hard because of the size of the pool. Is there a similar issue in New Zealand? If so, to what extent have you considered how that affects effective decision making and quality of delivery?

Following on from that, I note that you have a policy methods toolbox that describes how to use behavioural insights. Will you tell us a bit more about that? What training do people go through? I am particularly interested in how you avoid groupthink and the adverse influence of power structures, where the inclination is always to accede to the person in the level above you in the hierarchy. How embedded are those behavioural insights, and how well trained and kept up to speed are the people who use them?

Thank you.

I am referring to the pool of people whom we consult for external evidence.

That leads on to my last question about culture. Culture is a kind of summing up of a whole bunch of behaviours. When you were developing your methodology in 2020, did you step back and actively look at the culture of how you deliver change? Did you compare it with other countries? What findings remain constant a few years down the track?

I am aware of time, convener, but perhaps James Black can just finish off with any comments on risk and uncertainty in general.

I knew that you would.