Chamber and committees

Good morning, and thank you for being here.

This question might be for Marie Hendry, initially, because you talked about the work that you have done on focusing and targeting skills training through microcredentials. Will you elaborate on that a little bit? We have previously heard evidence that, for some disadvantaged groups, there are barriers to accessing training and opportunities for upskilling and reskilling. Can we focus specifically by geography, demographics or sector? What can you do now, and what do we need to change to ensure that we can improve?

Before I come to John Greenall, I will add something to the question around the potential impact not only on religious practices or what may be excluded from any ban. I am thinking about medical practitioners in your position in the organisation that you are here to represent. What might be the impact on the type of therapy provided by medical practitioners to someone—adult or child—who has concerns about their sexuality or gender identity? What are the potential impacts, and would you see any of those therapies being excluded?

Good morning to all the panellists. You have all, in different ways, expressed concerns about the potential criminalisation of pastoral care, prayer and those kinds of things. The United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has said that there is no conflict between the right to freedom of religion or belief and the obligation of the state to protect the life, dignity, health and equality of LGBT+ people. We have just heard quite a lot about definitions. What exceptions, if any, do you think should be defined in order to protect religious freedoms?

I will go to Piers first.

I am interested in hearing what Peter has to say, but I am curious about the research that Piers referenced. He said that, in the vast majority of cases, no harm had been done. However, the state has an obligation to protect those in the minority of cases in which harm is caused. That is what we are seeking to work our way through.

Does Peter want to respond to that question, too?

I thank Christine Ryan and Adam Jowett for their evidence. I have a couple of questions for each of them.

The first is for Christine. You clearly articulated three points that we have to bear in mind when considering what approach to take in legislation and more broadly. I am interested in the second point. To paraphrase, you said that legislation and regulation are all well and good, but that there is a broader cultural question for us to consider about how we ensure that our obligation to protect people’s dignity and individual rights applies across all aspects of society. Can you say a little more about that from a legal point of view? How much of that can we write into legislation, and how much of it has to come as a kind of wraparound thing that involves cultural change?

Thank you—that was really helpful.

Adam, could you give us a bit more detail on elements of your research? How do you see those elements being translated into the legislation that is proposed in England and Wales? How might they be applied in Scotland?

We have heard hints that there are differences between the form, and people’s experiences, of conversion practices that relate to gender identity and those that relate to sexual orientation. Did your research uncover any such distinctions, or are we safe to take gender identity and sexual orientation together? Linked to that is the question of consent and the differences between adults and children in that regard. Could we hear your thoughts on those issues, please?

Thank you—that is really helpful.

Thank you. I think that Pam Duncan-Glancy covered affirmative spaces and affirmative action previously.

We, in the Parliament, are great at identifying problems. Sometimes, though, we are less good at identifying solutions to those problems. The Scottish National Investment Bank offers a great opportunity and a good example of one such solution.

We might ask what the problem is and why it has not been solved by other approaches. The problem here is, of course, the inability of the market to appropriately analyse risk and allocate resources to address the serious risks and challenges that we face. All too often, finance is made available for recognised investment opportunities rather than for things that we need to create a better future.

Banks were investing in coal mines long, long after the risk of investing in coal should have made such investments inappropriate. Those same banks refused to invest in wind energy or other renewables early enough or at scale. The costs of those decisions are not just felt in return—or, rather, lack of return—on investment; they will also be felt through accelerated climate change. However, backing climate destruction rather than clean energy is not the only market failure. We know that investor conservatism stifles innovation and has prevented Scotland’s wonderfully creative citizens from turning their ideas into action.

The failure of the market to allocate resources effectively is not just a question for investors; it is a question for all of us. We need to address that failure. The Scottish National Investment Bank must do that in two ways: first, by being open to investment in innovation, and, secondly, by linking that investment to socially useful missions.

In its first year, the bank has done a reasonably good job on the first of those approaches. It is more open to innovation, and that has underpinned the success that we have seen in just less than 12 months. The fact that the bank is mission based is very welcome, but it is in the design of the missions that there are real opportunities. There are opportunities for us to achieve the change that we need: the change that will renew our society and build a new clean economy, and the change that will deliver the support systems that future generations deserve.

Let us look at the ways in which we can develop those missions. There are three things that we need to do: to clearly identify the problems that we have, to bring the possible solutions to those problems to bear and to make those solutions work. The SNIB plays a vital role in making those solutions work by financing them. However, we need to develop our thinking about how problems are defined in the first place, how we can bring to bear the maximum social contribution to those solutions, and, in all of that, how we can better include our citizens.

It will be democratic renewal alongside the systemic changes enabled by the SNIB and others that will allow us to transform our society. That means that we need to root those missions in social processes. We recently had a Scottish climate assembly. We now need a clear process for the implementation of the recommendations of that assembly. We need to connect the social processes of democracy, policy making and implementation, and then we need to develop on-going approaches that allow our learning and mission definition to be refined and constantly renewed.

The outcomes of the climate assembly need to feed into the design of missions for the SNIB. We need to build participation into the design of missions, based on a deep understanding of both the problems and the possible solutions. We know that the perceived wisdom of the market fails us and will continue to do so. That means that we must build new, data-rich, well-informed understanding that can lead us to connect problems and solutions, with widely supported social action to allow us to meet the climate challenge, make more liveable places and support our physical and social infrastructure.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s recognition that we cannot leave our future up to the market. I welcome the work of the SNIB over the past year. However, we have so much more to do. I hope that we can find new ways to properly understand the problems that we face and the opportunities that we have. Only by defining the missions appropriately can we invest in the right things for a better future.

On this remembrance day, I wear a white poppy. The white poppy has been worn for more than 80 years to symbolise three things: remembrance of all victims of war, a commitment to peace and a challenge to attempts to glamorise and celebrate war.

On this armistice day, I remember all victims of all wars—those that are in the past and those that are being fought as we speak. Suffering does not stop at national borders, so I include people of all nationalities, members of all armed forces, and all civilians. I remember and acknowledge all those who have been killed in war, wounded in body or mind, or left without homes or health, family or community. I remember family member, friend and stranger. I remember those who have been killed or imprisoned for resisting war or refusing to fight.

However, it is not enough simply to remember. Our remembering must be active. We have a responsibility to all those whom we remember today to act—to strive for a better world—so that we can genuinely mean it when we say, “Never again.”

That is why I include both a commitment to peace and a challenge to militarism in my remembering. That means always seeking non-violent solutions to conflict. It means building our communities and economies on systems and processes that do not lead to war. It means working to ensure that all our Governments and institutions do not promote or contribute to war. It means challenging our economic reliance on arms sales and our investment in nuclear weapons. It means building the support systems—the housing, the healthcare and community—that will keep us all safe and well.

White poppies challenge the promotion of militarism by drawing attention to the human and environmental cost of war. They highlight the urgency of our struggle for peace, and they remind us of the importance of year-round resistance to war and military conflict, because war is not the present or the future that we want.

We will all be familiar with the fine words, the sometimes stark words, and the words of warning and condemnations of violence that have come to us in the form of the poetry of the war poets who served in the first world war. I want to read a bit of poetry.

I will read an extract not from one of those first world war poets, but from Hamish Henderson’s “Elegies for the Dead in Cyrenaica”. Incidentally, Henderson was born on the first anniversary of armistice day; he would have been 102 today. The extract was written during, after and about the allied campaign in north Africa in the second world war, in which Henderson played a part. It does something very important, profoundly human, yet deeply difficult. It recognises the enemy. It values the enemy, living and dead. It acknowledges the humanity of the enemy. The extract is from “End of a Campaign”.

“There are many dead in the brutish desert,
who lie uneasy
among the scrub in this landscape of half-wit
stunted ill-will. For the dead land is insatiate
and necrophilous. The sand is blowing about still.
Many who for various reasons, or because
of mere unanswerable compulsion, came here
and fought among the clutching gravestones,
shivered and sweated,
cried out, suffered thirst, were stoically silent, cursed
the spittering machine-guns, were homesick for Europe
and fast embedded in quicksand of Africa
agonized and died.
And sleep now. Sleep here the sleep of dust.

There were our own, there were the others.
Their deaths were like their lives, human and animal.
There were no gods and precious few heroes.
What they regretted when they died had nothing to do with
race and leader, realm indivisible,
laboured Augustan speeches or vague imperial heritage.
(They saw through that guff before the axe fell.)
Their longing turned to
the lost world glimpsed in the memory of letters:
an evening at the pictures in the friendly dark,
two knowing conspirators smiling and whispering secrets;
or else
a family gathering in the homely kitchen
with Mum so proud of her boys in uniform:
their thoughts trembled
between moments of estrangement, and ecstatic moments
of reconciliation: and their desire
crucified itself against the unutterable shadow of someone
whose photo was in their wallets.
Their death made his incision.

There were our own, there were the others.
Therefore, minding the great word of Glencoe’s
son, that we should not disfigure ourselves
with villainy of hatred; and seeing that all
have gone down like curs into anonymous silence,
I will bear witness for I knew the others.
Seeing that littoral and interior are alike indifferent
and the birds are drawn again to our welcoming north
why should I not sing them, the dead, the innocent?”

So today, I wear a white poppy. Today, I remember all the victims of all wars. Today, I think of all that war destroys: innocence, safety, hope, love, life. Today, I reaffirm my commitment to work for peace for all.