Chamber and committees

You are talking about patient capital.

You mentioned that various groupings—ethnic minorities, the young, the old and so on—have been affected in certain ways, but you did not mention women. Given the flexibility that women often look for in various roles and given their predominance in care and hospitality jobs, what are your thoughts about them as a vital grouping and about how the public spending outlook might impact them?

Another area that we have not touched on is the similar question of how you are specifically baking in an assumption on climate change expenditure off the back of the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26. That has not come up today. What is the thinking in your modelling in relation to baking in up-front costs that will filter all the way through, and in relation to longer-term far-side implications? Anyone can answer that.

It is certainly interesting to think about. We have not touched much on structural issues in the economy that have been highlighted as a result of Covid. You talked about assets. It is commonly believed that asset values across the UK are overinflated and that that has been perpetuated for a long time because it is in a lot of people’s interests. I would appreciate hearing your current thinking about that. Do you agree with that view? What do you see happening in the future? You might well want to bring up other structural issues.

Good morning. Following on with regard to the pandemic, I am bit surprised at the reaction to the emergence of omicron. Lots of people suggested that it was highly likely that another variant would go into the population. I am interested in exploring the extent to which you have baked the impact of such waves into your economic modelling, and specifically in your points about separation of sector and so on. I totally appreciate that there is a whole range of variables.

I am interested in understanding the extent to which you have done that, and how that will reframe your modelling. I think that it was you, Sir Charlie, who spoke about quantitative easing and how it is, in effect, here to stay and will have an impact on debt going forward. What are your reflections on what you are doing differently now? What would you absolutely, definitely do differently in the future, and what does that means for Scotland? What are you insights on that, in relation to your modelling?

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.