Seòmar agus comataidhean

I indicated that I wanted to bring in Catherine Murphy because I was so struck by the submission from Engender. Catherine, you have already highlighted the systemic nature of the issues that permeate every budget line and every facet of society.

I have a point to make on the back of our earlier discussion about tax. Yesterday, I was reading about the proposed changes that were announced as part of the mini budget last week. It seems that 80 per cent of the benefit in higher rate tax will be realised by men and that 77 per cent of workers who earn too little to pay tax at all—and who will therefore derive no benefit whatsoever from the proposals—are women.

In thinking about what the committee could do, I took a clear message from what you said in your submission to the effect that although good work has been done so far, it does not go nearly far enough in holding every single other committee of the Parliament to account. We lead on the budget, but those committees also give their views, which could include setting out specifically how proposals will both impact on women—thinking about that backwards impact—and benefit them so as to start to really move the dial on equality. Would you be in favour of the committee making a firm recommendation that every other committee in the Parliament must do that? I do not want to put words in your mouth, but should that also apply to every submission to this committee? I gently challenge our witnesses to set that out, too. Despite good efforts and willingness, it feels as though this is groundhog day for conversations about the impact on women. However, you are obviously the expert.

My last question is on net zero targets, which the Auditor General and Susan Murray both mentioned. We know that they are already very difficult to achieve. We anticipate a fiscal event from the UK Government, which, if reports are correct, could roll back some of the commitments to net zero. Where is the tipping point for how that will increase the challenge for the Scottish Government, which has a clear target to achieve net zero?

Susan, in your submission you mention the Acorn carbon capture and storage project—and nearly everybody I have spoken to was utterly gobsmacked that that did not come to Scotland. I am trying to flesh out what could happen that would make you really concerned about Scotland’s job becoming much harder.

Thank you.

I will try to be brief. I have a couple of questions. In your submission, you mention wider adoption of shared services and correctly note that that will need increased resources and time to take effect. It also needs appetite. Can you help me to understand the standard functions that are normally part of shared services—that is, finance, HR and IT? Are there any genuinely shared services across all 32 local councils?

I get why that is the case. Have there been terms of reference for the review?

I have seen the document that was published in May.

To go back to your point, Kirsty Flanagan, sometimes we see facilities management, for example, being part of a shared services function. I accept what you said about the disparate geography of Argyll and Bute, but you have also pointed out that there is a lack of appetite across councils in respect of replicated functions—for example, finance directors, IT, HR and the specialisms. In any other commercial walk of life—I spent some time in commerce in a previous life—there is no way that there would be duplicated functions across the board. Hence my comment about appetite. On the one hand, councils complain about not having any money; on the other hand, it is clear that that is an area that should be looked at, as there are duplicated functions across 32 councils.

That is the point that I am trying to make, although I accept that there is the time issue and a cost.

I want to ask Kirsty Flanagan one more question. It is a bit of a technical question, so I hope that we can deal with it quite quickly.

You made a point in the submission about capital accounting. I know that that has been rumbling about for some time. Obviously, there are concerns about the planned review, but what was the driver for the concern? That issue has been raised a number of times, and something is now being done about it—it is being looked at. Surely a potential outcome is a positive one. I want to understand where your concerns are coming from and the assumption that the result could end up less favourable for councils.

I will not labour the point, because I am conscious of the time; however, I am just not clear why you think that that will automatically happen. That is what I am querying.

I go back to your point about the immediacy of the crises from which we are lurching. We have had several: we have had Brexit and Covid and we have a cost of living crisis. In addition, there are the up-front costs, which you clearly pointed out, before we get the benefits—if they are financial benefits. Does that work to inhibit structural change? Does short-termism always win the day, or is the possibility that it wins the day increased?

Good afternoon. Thank you for coming along today.

I will ask the Auditor General a question first. In your submission, you said that the resource spending review

“notes that there are ... 129 public bodies in Scotland”.

You quite coyly comment that

“structural reform ... can take time to achieve and generate short-term costs.”

I also note your point about service delivery and outcomes.

With regard to the typical time-cost quality of any change, you have not given any indication of the potential for cost savings. From an audit perspective, how does our having 129 public bodies compare with the situation in other countries? I realise that this is a difficult question, and I accept what you said earlier, but, by head of population or some other appropriate measure, do we have far too many public bodies, and should we have fewer?

Everybody is looking at you, Paul.