Chamber and committees

We have had a fascinating session so far. I will pick up on a few final threads. We have had a lot of chat about cash flow and margins, which I absolutely understand. That can lead to consolidation and so on. On the proposals for 20-minute neighbourhoods, I note that retail, and particularly small retail outlets, will play a vital role in that regard. I want to understand what opportunities and/or risks are brought about by consolidation and, in relation to your comments about cash flow and margins, 20-minute neighbourhoods and sustainability within that. Will you flesh that out a wee bit more? I know that we have touched on each of the different areas.

I would like all the witnesses to answer that question, and I ask Ewan MacDonald-Russell to go first.

We heard a great comment earlier about consumer behaviour: “We did not anticipate that people would keep buying televisions.” I cannot remember which of you said that, but perhaps you have all been quite optimistic today in looking to what will happen when we get over the hurdle of these 18 months and Covid. However, let us allow ourselves to be somewhat pessimistic and imagine that we will be in a similar scenario, with all the additional barriers that you have outlined due to Brexit, in three years’ time. I am interested in what the effect might be on consumer behaviour, because there is a bow wave or a time lag. Looking back, people have demanded that stuff be available just in time. If you allow yourselves to be pessimistic, what concerns would you like to bring out that we might not have heard today?

John, you are smiling—you are obviously happy to be pessimistic for me.

There has perhaps been a process of osmosis, because I was going to ask about similar areas to those that have been raised. We have explored how, in the 10 years since the Christie commission, we have tended to see evolution rather than revolution. The comment has been made that Christie gave the opportunity, in the setting up of social care elements, to develop a new vision that was removed from the existing culture and existing processes, which has been regarded as a success.

That leads us to where we are now, post the pandemic. You have highlighted how public sector bodies came together and rules were broken or pushed to get the right outcomes. I did not mean that rules were broken but that there was a focus on getting bold outcomes.

I will explore further how that approach can continue culturally, with a link back to the Christie principles and particularly to empowerment. How can the Government enable that? You touched on the blockers around budgeting, which I would like you to flesh out. How can we continue the approach?

In your opening statement, you used the term “ethical” in relation to the Christie report—that was the first time that I have heard the term in that context. There is often a dichotomy with regard to ethics, where, rather than focusing on consequentialist outcomes, which involve the end result, organisations will focus on deontological—that is, process-driven—outcomes. I was intrigued by the use of the word “ethical”. Is that something that you have started to reflect further on, or has it always been there and I have missed it? It is just that I have not heard that term being used in relation to the Christie report before.

That idea of a licence to operate leads me to the next area that I want to address. One of the three themes that you said that you are focusing on is good, green jobs. I want to explore how you see permission and an emboldened licence to operate interfacing with private sector business, which, traditionally, might have different behaviours. Have you considered that in relation to, for example, revisiting the national planning framework 4? I think that that is worthy of consideration.

In 2016, when I was a member of Parliament, I spoke in the House of Commons about being raped at the age of 14. Too little has changed. In the immediate aftermath, I received thousands of cards, letters and emails. Simultaneously, I received extensive abuse on social media, almost always from men. After my speech, I made a complaint to Police Scotland. The perpetrator was identified and charged but not prosecuted, due to the passage of time. It was never reported in the press.

Making a police report was difficult. I learned why some facets of my adult character were as they were. When I described my very varied career to Police Scotland, the police explained to me that my workaholic habits were entirely understandable, because when someone like me starts running, they keep running. Many women, however, run into the arms of an abusive partner, drugs or drink.

The police also helped me to understand why my disclosure in such a public arena, in which I was being constantly scrutinised and briefed against, was a rational action. It is common for women to disclose after a significant life-changing or shocking event, such as the loss of a child or partner—and, often, after years of silence and denial. Disclosure was me finally standing my ground. I was naked from the inside out, and all I had was that small internal voice that whispered, “Hear me.”

I learned that freezing, rather than fighting or fleeing, had become a learned behaviour. I understood how I had repeated that freezing during other events. The victim’s guilt and shame that I carried is, regrettably, quite normal.

The process was difficult for me and my family, as we came to realise the extent to which I had masked my pain. I went through a process of grieving for the innocent girl that I had been, and the uncluttered woman that I might have become. However, I refuse to have my voice shut down ever again.

Multiple studies help us to understand how trauma forges different neural pathways and how future life events can add trauma upon trauma. That makes true recovery difficult.

All around the world, women are raped, beaten, abused, subjected to genital mutilation, sold into slavery and prostituted. Data from the UN tells us that, globally, almost one in three women have been subjected to violence from an intimate partner, generalised sexual violence, or both, at least once in their life. Fewer than 40 per cent of the women who experience violence seek help of any sort, such are the taboos against speaking out.

Women and girls together account for 72 per cent of all human trafficking victims globally. Girls represent more than three out of four child trafficking victims; most face a life of sexual slavery. Sex-based violence is a major obstacle to universal schooling and the right to education for girls. Recently, we have seen that at first hand in Afghanistan. Not only has the Covid pandemic enabled more crime against women; it has disproportionately affected them economically, thus placing them more at risk.

The me too movement brought solidarity to women, in the sharing of common experiences about the use and abuse of power; however, it has not brought change. Historically, our state systems were developed by men, for men. Our law, our business practices and so on are now being replicated by artificial intelligence algorithms that are, ironically, embedding sexism further. The advances that women have made feel elusive. Women, as a sex class, are constantly under threat, and many feel that our hard-won rights are being challenged. The fact remains that countless women were, like me, attacked because of their sex.

Sexist and misogynistic behaviour is common in politics, and we cannot pretend that our Scottish Parliament is immune. Scotland’s lion is rampant in one area—that of casual entitlement—despite huge efforts by Government and by multiple agencies.

Sexual violence is not confined just to some. It affects lesbians, gays, straight people and trans people; women, children and men. However, the perpetrator is almost always a man. Good men—that majority of decent, loving and caring men that I know exists—have a critical role in helping to effect the changes that we so desperately need. Whether in the face of casual sexism, a joke that the female target does not find amusing, or more blatant misogyny that tries to shut down women’s voices, society needs us all, including men, to shape the change that we still so desperately need to see. We must all commit to making that change.

Good morning. Before we get too deeply into the session, I want to ask Kiran Fernandes a couple of questions about his report, which follow from what we have already started to discuss around Brexit.

I thank you for your classifications of supply chains, which I found insightful and helpful. However, Brexit has affected each of those types of supply chain. Although I know that that is not the focus of your report, how did you manage to remove its effects from your analysis altogether? That approach puzzled me, so can you help me understand how it came about?

I have another couple of questions, but you do not need to answer them now—I would prefer it if you emailed the responses to the committee so that we can understand the basis of your research.

You mention the case study analyses and the features and weightings involved. I did not quite understand how you arrived at the weightings and, in particular, it would be useful to understand the methodology. Also, you mentioned risk; in most academic literature, risk is defined as a combination of the probability of getting a bad outcome with an assessment of the value of the bad outcome, and they are then combined to get a utility score. In your report, you depart from that model, so I would like to understand your basis of risk, because that feeds back to your earlier comment about how you weighted the impact of Brexit on some of those supply chains.

I will be very brief. We have had a very interesting session, in which we have covered dynamism in supply chains and have explored a lot of nearside issues. My simple question is to Richard Ballantyne, and other contributors may want to follow up. Have we covered, and gained a good understanding of, the structural issues and what we need to do to get resilience? You could answer that by saying yes or no. If the answer is no, please follow up with some other information. I am aware of the time.

I add my voice of thanks to those who participated in the citizens assembly. I would be interested to hear how the Scottish Government plans to feed back on-going progress to them, after all their hard work.

I note with interest that 62 per cent of participants strongly agreed that the Scottish Parliament should legislate for an

“independent, specialist body that is responsible for finding evaders and avoiders of tax, with power to recover tax due.”

That clearly demonstrates that people in Scotland share the pecuniary values for which Scotland is well known internationally. Can the minister advise us, however, whether the contributors were aware that it is Westminster that set and has perpetuated the regulatory environment where, regrettably, tax can be avoided in that way, and that such an initiative can apply only to the small percentage of tax that the Scottish Parliament controls?