Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is not often that I get the last word in any session of the committee. I am looking at the four men on the panel, and I am reminded that significant structural inequalities for women remain in the economy. Covid has had a big impact. The cost crisis has had a disproportionate effect.

Close the Gap suggests that narrowing the gap could add £17 billion to the Scottish economy. That organisation has expressed the view, with which I strongly agree, that equality must be seen as an economic issue, not an equalities issue. Will you give a commitment to testing every element of what you bring forward for the Scottish budget as to its impact on women, in terms of contribution and reduction?

Just picking up on John Mason’s point around investment zones, it is good that some initial discussions have taken place. Do you have any concerns that money will be made available for them that bypass the priorities of the Scottish Government with no proper accountability or scrutiny, as has been highlighted as a concern in relation to some of the other levelling-up-type funds? Have you got that far in your discussions yet?

You have made that very clear at this meeting and elsewhere.

One of the reasons why the markets were so spooked was not just the lack of an OBR look-ahead but the fact that the UK Government intended to borrow vast sums of money to fund tax cuts. I wondered at the time whether the same people who were running gleefully to borrow money for those would also run gleefully to press for an increase to the Scottish Government’s borrowing powers, although we would both immediately agree that the Scottish Government would not be so stupid as to borrow money to fund tax cuts.

In light of that, will you commit to an increased emphasis on further proper flexible borrowing powers for the Scottish Government? The situation has laid bare the lack of fiscal resources available to you in the current economic climate.

Carolyn, do you have anything to add?

I am sure that you have. [Laughter.]

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?

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.