Seòmar agus comataidhean

Could you unpick that a little? One of our questions is about where different intersectional categories might be perceived to come into conflict with each other. What is the ALLIANCE’s approach to teasing those out in the broader human rights budgeting approach?

Okay. That is fine. I am sorry—I realise that that was quite a big question. While you are thinking, I will to go to Mirren Kelly and Alexis Camble.

Mirren, in your opening remarks, you talked about agreement. As somebody who believes in subsidiarity—local by default and national by agreement—how do you deal with a rights-based approach where there is a universal application, universal experience, or at least universal intent? How do you balance that universality with the need for local decision making?

Does Alexis Camble want to come in on training?

There is quite a lot in all those answers, but I will leave it there for now.

I thank the panel members for their contributions so far. The discussion has been interesting. I will explore the notion of the infrastructure that we need in Scotland that the golden triangle has and we do not. George Davidson spoke about that specifically in relation to clinical trials, but I want to think about it more broadly. The Tayside regional deal and its equivalents elsewhere have been referred to.

Adam, your report talks about the good geographic dispersal of the industry and that there is a network across Scotland. Does that apply across the different elements of what we are talking about, or is it specific to certain aspects of the industry? For example, I know that there is good research capacity in some places but not elsewhere, and that there is good innovation in some places but not elsewhere. I am trying to understand the stratification within that statement about good dispersal.

I have a couple of questions for Becca Stacey about money and mental health and the thinking around the support that money advisers receive. Last week, I talked about gatekeeping. Do you have any experience of money advisers not supporting people in the way that we might wish them to, especially under the mental health moratorium, due to their not having the skills, resources or the tools that they need? Do you have experience of that from initiatives that are operating elsewhere?

I will build on that. We have heard a lot about scaling up and the importance of different types of investment VC as well as public investment to bridge gaps. Do we also need to think about scaling deep and scaling out? We have heard that in the committee before, in other contexts and with regard to other sectors.

George Davidson talked about how we stop people doing the things that they have always done. What is it about the culture that we need to change that is not just about money? What else do we need to do to ensure that we get those roots? In essence, we are talking about the setting down of deep roots around the spin-outs, so that they stick. That is not always about scaling up, but we do not talk about scaling out and scaling deep, so how do you help us to change the conversation and what do you need from us to help to change that conversation?

That is really helpful. I have a question about who refers. It is quite clear in the proposals that the application for a mental health moratorium will go through a money adviser only. Is that okay? Could that mean that there is the potential to miss people who would be eligible but have not found a money adviser or cannot do that for reasons relating to their mental health crisis? Are we potentially missing people who will fall through the net or fall through the cracks in that approach?

Good morning. I thank Becca Stacey and Sarah-Jayne Dunn for joining us.

I will continue the questioning that Colin Smyth started on how we can make the mental health moratorium as effective as possible and on the potential challenges. Sarah-Jayne Dunn, you mentioned the vital role of money advisers and you have direct experience in that area. You alluded to the increased need for such advisers. What are your thoughts on the money advice sector’s capacity to meet potential demand for support? Alongside the bill, what else needs to change or what else needs to be introduced to ensure that there is the right number of money advisers and that they have the support and the resources to be able to do their really important advisory work?

You make the point about the need for connections into the whole piece, rather than just taking money advice as a single issue.

We heard last week from people involved in the commercial money advice sector, who said that they need to be involved, too. What kind of relationship have you had, or does Citizens Advice envisage, with the commercial sector? How do we ensure that there is not a different approach or a different type of service being provided to people who seek their support?