Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will just ask one more question, because I know that other people want to come in.

We have not talked all that much about conditionality yet, but it follows on naturally from data collection. If there is one or a few things that you would recommend about conditionality—assuming that the data is in place, which is a whole separate discussion—what specifically would you recommend for the budget? You can give me your top three, because there are quite a lot of things, I suspect.

In essence, you are utterly reframing the issue as an economic problem to be solved rather than an equalities problem to be pigeonholed. That is coming through quite clearly.

Good morning. You have touched on so many different areas. I will ask one open question now and I may want to come back in.

I am on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which yesterday took evidence on the budget from Engender. It said it had concerns regarding the lack of attention that the Scottish budget process pays to structural gender equality. You have talked about data and outcomes, and you have given some specifics. How can our budget process move beyond having regard to systemic barriers for women and take the bold steps needed to effect real change? You are here today, so the question is: have you been to every other committee to give similar evidence that is aligned to them, given the cross-cutting issues that you have started to outline? Have you been invited to do so? What comment could you give about the actual process? That would be useful as well.

If you are really going to effect change, you could say, for example, that no public body should award any grant funding unless it is entirely equitable. It is more complex than that. We know that women may not apply for grants, for example, and that is a cultural barrier, but that is a very simple example. The issue is about effecting change, which goes back to the point about things being systemic. If I were a budget holder, I might be inclined to do that, particularly for women in business. I understand that the issue is complex. There has been tinkering thus far, which has been very well meaning, but maybe we need to be bolder. If you were in charge, what would you be doing about allocation of funding?

Carolyn, do you have anything to add?

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?