Chamber and committees

In that case, are you saying that it can be argued that proxy measures are, if they are applied consistently across the board, better than nothing at all? I do not want to put words in your mouth, but that is what I took from what you were saying.

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

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

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

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

I have given you a get-out.

In common with other members, I thank my friend and colleague Fiona Hyslop for bringing the debate to Parliament and for paying such a fitting tribute that managed to fit in all aspects of the subject, despite it being such an all-encompassing motion.

I hope that my short contribution brings some further insights, including the need for imagination and ambition for the future as we address the economic needs of Scotland today.

When it was first built, the Union canal was a tribute to the ingenuity and innovation of the designers and the builders of the day. Thirty-one and a half miles long and Scotland’s only contour canal, it was known locally at the time as “the mathematical river”, for good reason. It followed that 240-foot contour throughout its length, by way of 62 fixed bridges. That was a remarkable innovation, which allowed traffic to flow at speed and rendered locks unnecessary. The importance of that cannot be overestimated. What would be a considerable feat of engineering today was utterly remarkable and inspiring all those years ago.

The canal meanders through my constituency of Falkirk East—I must lay claim to the fact that it was Burke who worked on the canal at Maddiston in Falkirk East—from Westquarter in the west, traversing Polmont, running on towards the east side near Muiravonside and eventually heading across the remarkable Avon aqueduct and onwards to Edinburgh. Much of that has been covered today.

Not only was the canal a source of employment for many people in communities that are now part of Falkirk East, it smoothed supply chains, created spin-off enterprises and supported community development. It is remarkable to think that such a huge infrastructure development, with its innovative design built around the ambition to improve and facilitate trade, remains a great symbol of Scotland’s imagination and skills. That ingenuity and innovation are reflected today in the wonderful year-long programme of events that has already been mentioned.

We should aspire to be similarly imaginative about the future. I would like Falkirk East, and indeed the Forth valley, to become the hub for new investment aimed at sustainable international trade. We must set ourselves the task of emulating the foresight and drive that were so evident in the design and building of the canal 200 years ago.

I pay tribute to and thank the many people involved, in particular the leadership and board of Scottish Canals. Given my debate last week on the subject of women in business, it is inspiring to note that such an innovative programme is overseen by a board on which four of the six members are female, with Maureen Campbell as chair and Catherine Topley as chief executive.

Much of the debate has focused on the history of the canal and on the many celebration events. Here is my plea: the greatest tribute that we can pay to all those who have been involved from the time when the canal was merely an idea through to today is to mobilise such imagination, knowledge and skills once more in a major and ambitious programme to better engage Scotland with the wider world.

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

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

I think that we all agree on that. Are you aware of data being collected? You have given the example of institutions’ properties lying empty. That is an example of where we might gather data. Are you aware of anyone collecting data that adds weight to the opinions?

It would be useful to have that data set for Scotland, as well.

Good morning, everybody. My first question is for Pauline Smith. We have heard in other evidence sessions about an oversupply of retail premises. You have talked very positively about Huntly Development Trust with regard to community-empowered creativity, but what role do you see for development trusts and social enterprises in repurposing properties? You have also talked about the complexity of the legal aspects. That will be one barrier, but I suspect that there will be others. Can you say something about those two areas?