Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am really interested in learning more about how the green industrial strategy was developed and the evidence for that, if that is possible.

Thank you. We have touched slightly on my next question, but I will elaborate on it. The second PFG priority is growing our economy. I have a question about what that means, because economic growth can be associated with increased inequality—letting the rich get richer—and it can be associated with trashing the environment. Both of those things will give you great GDP figures, but they do not lead to the wellbeing economy that we claim to want.

The update to the national performance framework and the new proposed national outcomes was a good bit of work—I support that. It included community engagement and it talked about public transport—the things that we need to do. How do you square the full charge for economic growth, which can cause environmental havoc and inequality, with measuring our success on the proposed national outcomes, which are based very much on a wellbeing economy? Those feel like two different things. You are measuring one thing while trying to achieve another.

I get that it is to bring us in line with the UK. I am just curious as to whether there is any current provision by those countries that would therefore be terminated or not be able to be renewed. What is meant by “certain health care services”? Maybe you could write to me about that.

I want to understand this clearly. Are any healthcare services being provided in Scotland by the countries that are being removed—Georgia, Albania, Kosovo, Moldova, North Macedonia and Ukraine? The instrument says that it removes those countries’ access to bidding for procurement of “certain health care services”. What kind of healthcare services are those?

The cabinet secretary will know that I think that a good green industrial strategy is very important in setting out Scotland as a place for investment in key sectors as we move forward in the just transition. However, I have noticed an area of incoherence between the national strategy for economic transformation and the green industrial strategy. I hope that the cabinet secretary can elaborate and tell us how she is going to align those strategies.

The NSET includes a list of 14 opportunities, which is quite a long bullet list, and many of those have a sub-list. That does not come across as very strategic but as a massive shopping list. It is wonderful that Scotland has so many opportunities, but that is not a strategic approach. It makes sense that the green industrial strategy is a shorter list, but that shorter list is not a subset of what is in the NSET. Two things that are in the green industrial strategy do not appear in the NSET at all. One is carbon capture, utilisation and storage, and the other is energy-intensive industry stuff, which includes chemicals, paper and steel. Those are all great industries, but neither CCUS nor those energy-intensive industries were identified in the NSET as opportunities. How come they have suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as it were, in the green industrial strategy as key opportunities? What evidence was used to generate the opportunities in the green industrial strategy versus those in the NSET? How are we supposed to know what our strategic priorities are when we have two disparate lists?

The difficulty is, when the goal is growth, as it is in the PFG, that gives no reassurance that growth will not be just the pursuit of maximising GDP while causing negative outcomes elsewhere.

It is misleading to say that our goal is growth, given that, as the cabinet secretary has set out, our goal is a wellbeing economy, in which people’s lives are improved, communities are strengthened and businesses are safe to invest. That might mean that GDP comes down a couple of notches, because we need to redistribute wealth or to invest more in public services. It is important to be clear on whether we are going after a wellbeing economy rather than maximising a single metric no matter what the cost to society.

Just to make sure that I have understood, can you confirm whether the UK, of all the countries on the list, had the lowest provision of childcare?

I am also a member of Unite the union.

I should probably disclose that my husband was on a zero-hours contract for several years, so I am aware of the sharp end of that. Thank you very much for that.

My next question relates, slightly, to the barrier between reserved and devolved powers. How did the UK and Scotland compare with the other countries on the list with regard to childcare provision, and how much do you think that that affects the data?

Okay. I just noticed that, when we averaged it out, England was at the bottom of the table. It is an interesting comparison and shows how the Scottish Government is trying to balance things in an upwards direction.

For my last question, I want to change the topic slightly and look at workers in rural areas. It is an issue on which we have done some work, but I am interested in your work on it, too. I note that the hospitality inquiry report highlighted the challenges facing hospitality workers, particularly when housing is provided as part of their job. I am aware from my previous role that that is also a challenge in the agriculture sector, where workers, gamekeepers and so on are often housed as part of their job. When we looked at putting in place conditionality with regard to Scottish Government grant funding and attaching it to the real living wage, we found that the agriculture sector was struggling in that respect. I am therefore interested in hearing about the issues for rural workers, particularly with regard to being paid the living wage and other aspects of fair work. What are the conditions like now for rural workers and what can we do to improve them?