Chamber and committees

Obviously, that raises the question of what you would cut to support such pay increases.

Gail, do you want to close this out? How should the Scottish Government address issues specifically relating to women?

Did you want to come in, Alan?

Susan Murray will not be surprised to hear that I want to follow up on her comment about unregistered businesses. It was a fair comment. My perception is that a fair percentage of those businesses would be led by women. Can you put a bit of meat on the bones of the comment that you made on that, before I move on to my main questions?

I will bring in David Eiser shortly, but I first want to bring out Susan Murray’s important point about what we can do. Although I recognise and agree with the point about the role of private businesses, perhaps the Government can use conditionality. People are talking about that much more frequently, often in relation to net zero, but it could be used much more. We have business organisations that do not even routinely disaggregate their data by gender and then interrogate that, which seems to me to be utterly fundamental.

Both of the other witnesses can come back in after I have given David Eiser a chance to comment, but my point is that it is incumbent on us to try to assist with potential policy options or ideas. Like Susan Murray, I like to keep things simple, so for me it is about what the difference would be that makes a difference, while recognising the huge complexity. David, do you have any thoughts to add on this area?

Post-Covid, there is an opportunity for everyone to think differently.

Does any of the other witnesses have any final reflections on any of the themes that I have touched on?

My first question is quite technical and follows on from our discussion about recognising the whole fiscal landscape. I am genuinely interested in the service concession approach. The joint submission states:

“This is not merely an accounting exercise—it has genuine implications for funding Local Government services into the future”.

It goes on to highlight opportunities in that regard, such as the ability to “invest in assets” and “deliver on net zero”. If those are the opportunities, what are the risks of the approach?

Secondly, are your concerns about the Scottish Government’s review to do with the fact that there is a review, or are you concerned about the timescale, because you would like to see a clear outcome sooner rather than later? I suspect that my question is for Alan Russell initially, but Gail Macgregor might want to come in, too.

Thank you.

I am sorry to interrupt. You have given a clear description of what the issue is about. You used the term “anomaly”. To draw you back to my question, I understand what you are talking about, but what I am trying to draw out is whether there are any risks to the Scottish Government of enabling the service concession approach. You have been clear that there will be no additional costs. I am trying to explore whether you have identified any additional risks.

We cannot see Chris on the screen. Perhaps his connection has dropped out again.