Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the cabinet secretary set out the Scottish Government’s commitment to increase classroom assistant numbers?

I, too, congratulate Paul McLennan on securing this important members’ business debate. The subject is incredibly close to my heart, if members will excuse the pun, and the reason is my mother—my ma, Violet. She was an incredible woman. She took no prisoners in life, and she was upfront, honest and authentic. She was very funny, with quite a dark sense of humour. Her wit was as sharp as her mind, and she could wipe the floor with anybody in a quiz. She was a very politically active and aware woman who was an activist for Scottish independence and feminism way back in the 1960s. She loved rock music. I came across old pen pal letters of hers in which she was adamant that the Rolling Stones were far superior to the Beatles, which is perhaps a debate for another day. Most of all, her love of Elvis was what shone through. We had that in common, and it was a connection that we adored together.

That connection was lost almost 23 years ago, when she died suddenly of a heart attack aged only 49, alone and at home. A doctor discovered her while doing their rounds as she had called them and said that she did not feel quite right. If she had called an ambulance or if the symptoms had been escalated as an emergency, perhaps she would still be here now, but I can only speculate.

I will be 48 this year—nearly the same age as she was—and I wonder how far we have come in preventing this kind of devastating loss. I certainly do not want my fate or that of any other woman to be as abrupt and sudden as my mother’s.

Until recently, heart disease was the biggest killer of women in Scotland—it has now been overtaken by dementia—and I am still surprised to see how many people do not know that utterly shocking fact. Why do we still assume that heart disease and heart attacks are a men’s problem? The British Heart Foundation published a report called “Bias and Biology”, which was a welcome move to understand the underlying issues that might answer that question. There were five calls in the report, and I am delighted that the Scottish Government committed to include heart health as a priority in the women’s health plan, which was launched in 2021, along with those five asks. The report called for

“Improved awareness among the public and health care professionals of heart disease in women ... Improved data collection and linkage for heart disease ... A review of SIGN guidelines on heart disease to identify and address any relevant gaps relating to sex-specific issues ... The modernisation of cardiac rehabilitation to ensure that everyone can access personalised, responsive and flexible services suited to their needs”

and

“The appointment of a national Women’s Heart Champion to implement these changes.”

Fully actioned, the five calls will save lives and ensure a future in which families like mine will no longer have to deal with the devastating loss of someone who is so young. Women’s health must be taken seriously, and women must take their own health seriously. Much of what we will discuss in the debate is preventable, which is the starkest wake-up call of all.

In 2013, I travelled to Memphis to Elvis’s Graceland, where, wearing my mother’s ring, I squeezed my hand through some wooden bars to touch Elvis’s furry chair in his jungle room. It was a sentimental moment to symbolise a connection with someone who is no longer here—a moment that I wished my mum could have shared with me. I have personalised my speech because, during heart month, I want to highlight the human cost of heart disease. I ask women to take their heart health seriously and to prioritise themselves. Women’s hearts are often full of love and service for others, but our hearts are also our vital organ. I urge women to take care of their hearts and to demand that their health providers do, too.

Good morning, minister, and thank you for the evidence thus far. I have often thought that fiscal management can be a bit dry and boring, but this is really not boring. It is quite exciting to be able to discuss how we follow the money and ensure that, when we do that, the outcomes that we see are embedded with regard to equalities and human rights. It is a really exciting time. As you say, we are quite world leading in a lot of this work.

You hit the nail on the head when we were talking about the fact that it is almost an eternal progression. There probably never will be an end point. Nothing can really be set in stone as the world moves and as we realise people’s needs and understand their human rights, particularly as we move towards a wellbeing economy, which we are focusing on in Scotland. It is crucial work, and it is particularly interesting in this committee, of course.

Last week, we discussed the duty and accountability of public bodies—local authorities—and the need to ensure that their equalities duties are not just an afterthought. In a previous life, before I was an MSP, I was a councillor. In my work, I often found that equalities duties were at the end of documents. Whether that was the same in practice, I do not know, but that is where they sat in documents. It seemed that certain things were just ticked off. How do we ensure that public bodies take into account core values and that equalities issues run through everything that they do, like a thread?

That is really helpful to know. It is perhaps helpful that they have been forthcoming in saying that it has not been clear enough for them. After all, we can provide as many tools as we want but they need to know how to use them. How do we ensure that the core priorities of local authorities are what we really want to see nationwide, without overstepping our mark into their autonomy?

Good morning, minister. I had a question about the EU, which you have answered quite comprehensively. Where else do you see the powers of clause 42 being used?

I have a quick question about outcomes. I feel that my questions around participation and suchlike were answered but a key point that was raised was about that outreach to the public and the idea of starting with outcomes and tracing the money backwards. How do we ensure that the outcomes that we are looking at are representative?

I think that Clare Gallagher spoke about how we had a demographic, for example, where a particular race was interlinked with a religion, but that was not necessarily the case. How can we ensure that the outcomes for that group, which are not interlinked with religion, are being met? What can we do to improve the information in relation to the outcomes? Can the Scottish Government do anything more in that regard?

Thank you, Clare; that is really helpful.

I thank the witnesses for their evidence, which has been really informative. Angela O’Hagan spoke about making budgeting more accessible to people. She has made it more accessible to me, so I appreciate that. Your evidence has been really helpful.

In relation to flipping the position and tracing money backwards from the outcomes, I found interesting what was said about how we can do that in a more meaningful and progressive way. In my previous life, when I was a local councillor, information on the public sector equality duty was always at the back of our papers. In relation to how that was used, I do not know whether it was seen last or first but, for me, that was a symbol, which made me ask whether the duty was an afterthought.

We have a lot of tools, but are they being used in the right way and at the right time when decisions are made? Have there been any missed opportunities in the Scottish Government’s approach? Could things be more measurable? We talked about outcomes coming first. How do we measure those outcomes? A lot of the time, it seems to be a case of the cart coming before the horse.

If you could tidy things up a bit, what would be your preferred system? What opportunities are there?

That is helpful—thank you.

The issue is that the priorities can often become subject to the push and pull of politics.