Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is the final draft.

Okay—thank you.

Everything that you have all been talking to us about is overwhelming. It is very clear that many inequalities that have been highlighted by the Covid-19 pandemic existed before it. They are issues that women have been championing intersectionally and on which they have been trying to get the message across for generations.

It is fantastic that we are hearing from you and discussing this today, but what can we really do to make a massive shift happen? We have heard about patriarchal structures; for example, evidence that although 80 per cent of people with autoimmune diseases are women, women are less likely to take time off to go to the doctor or for childcare because of perceptions. Is there a deeper underlying cause that we need to address, on top of making the practical and policy changes that we need to make? I suppose that that is a higher-level question, but I am very interested to hear your feedback on it. The question is open to any witness who would like to come in.

Good morning, everyone. I will ask about the labour market. The pandemic affected a different set of industries than usual recessions would have done. It was significantly gender specific. Women and men tend to cluster in different occupations, which shaped the gender implications of the pandemic. Female jobs are more at risk than male ones simply because women are disproportionately represented in sectors that have been negatively affected by the Covid-19 crisis.

The witnesses are all involved in addressing that dilemma with their intersectional lenses. What are the biggest obstacles to ending that disparity? Where can we do more for people who are affected? I put that question first of all to One Parent Families Scotland.

I thank Sir Dieter Helm for his comprehensive answers. I have found it absolutely fascinating, and my question has shifted every time he has given an answer. I will come in to mop up or sweep up, so to speak.

Although I have many questions, throughout it all, I have sensed a very top-down approach. We talk about the private sector and the public sector, and we also talk about the people managing the land. We are in a sensitive time for the environment. We talk a lot about the green economy and—to take you out to sea for a bit, as I have a coastal community constituency—the blue economy. We also have a wellbeing economy and a good food nation and all that combined to be thinking of.

You spoke about politicians making the decisions. Before I became an MSP, I was a councillor, and I saw a lot of good localised community action, particularly when there was storm damage such as we had recently and during Covid-19. We have spoken about public ownership for public good, but what about local ownership for local good? Farmers and fishermen see the changes in our environment before anybody else, and they might know the best way to manage those things. What are your views on taking a very localised view and on local ownership?

My question is for Ian Dickie and is about the characterisation report and the main opportunities for investment that it identified. Was the issue looked at in a holistic way? Particularly during Covid, quite a lot of farms diversified into agritourism, for example. We are talking about natural capital but, from a local point of view, who were the stakeholders that were involved? This is not about natural capital, but I have a coach company in my constituency—do not worry, convener, I am not advertising, so I will not give the name—that is trying hard to encourage people out of their cars and on to coaches to access what we would call our natural capital. We could probably call that company a facilitator. Was it included as a stakeholder? Were the main opportunities for investment seen in a holistic sense?

To ask the Scottish Government how its policies across Government will support the north-east’s recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. (S6O-00497)

I welcome the investment in the north-east. As that region continues to recover from storm Arwen—and now storm Barra, as well—many people are not able to schedule or attend for their Covid vaccination booster. With the omicron variant spreading throughout Scotland, what advice can the Deputy First Minister give to my constituents who have delayed getting booster jags because of the storm disruption?

I was going to ask questions about mental health, but I think that the witnesses have answered some of those, so I would like to shift the focus a bit.

We have heard about women often going without food and clothing to prioritise others’ needs. Women’s health is often deprioritised. Women tend to have more physical disruptions—for want of a better word—such as menstrual-related health issues, pregnancy and birth, postpartum care, and menopause, which has multiple layers of health issues. All of those can impact day-to-day living without appropriate care. For example, heart disease in women is a silent killer, as it is often overlooked or dismissed.

Job access equality and working out of the home often depend on being physically able. Where does women’s physical health come into that? Was that also deprioritised or overlooked? Did you see within your remits any effects of women’s health inequalities that perhaps became more apparent at the height of the pandemic? Is that a noted factor in gender-based inequality?

I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement on this comprehensive report. I also thank the people with lived experience who came forward and shared their experiences, which must have been distressing for them, in order to push for action. I am glad to hear that there will be on-going conversations with them.

My question relates to the issues that Carol Mochan raised. Will the cabinet secretary outline the action that the Scottish Government is taking to increase the number of appropriately trained clinical staff? He has already answered the question in part, but will the action include other rural healthcare centres?