Chamber and committees

Thank you for that information. To build on Michelle Thomson’s questions, I too, in reading your annual report, picked up on the phrase

“updating legacy IT systems and evolving our IT estate onto a long-term sustainable basis.”

You talked about the two sets of contractors that you currently have: those who are working on the new systems that you are developing, who will not be needed in the long term; and the “keeping the show on the road” folk, whom you want to bring in-house as ROS employees. I understand that, and I take on board your comments to Michelle Thomson.

I am interested in the updating process. From what you have said, and from what I have read in the documentation, that has been going on for a while. How are you managing that process alongside the aspects that Claire Baker asked about—the actual work of ROS and managing the arrears? How do you see the balance of risk and resource allocation between those two aspects?

Thinking about the longer term, I note that you talked about bringing down the cost of contractors in the future. In mapping, certain things can change very quickly. Are you certain that you will have resources available when you need them? I am thinking about the skills and expertise that you may not want to keep in-house, but for which you will need contractors in the future. How is that playing out in your mapping for future financing and resourcing?

Thank you for your opening remarks. I have a couple of questions about safeguards.

You talked about, and listed quite clearly, the safeguards to prevent unlawful sharing of data. Given what has been in the media recently about the Post Office scandal and the incorrect data and software malfunction that led to many convictions, what safeguards are in place to ensure that the data that is stored and shared is correct in the first place? As an extension of the safeguards, what opportunities will there be for debtors to know who has that data, when that data is shared, how long it is kept and whether they can challenge that?

Although we are pleased to have secured commitments to fair pay in public contracts, support for co-operatives, social enterprises and public ownership models, and a focus on green jobs, the cabinet secretary will know that the Scottish Greens believe that prioritising growth as a measure of economic success drives increasing inequalities, more precarious work and unsustainable resource extraction and exploitation. How will the cabinet secretary ensure that equalities and human rights are embedded in all economic development activities, and over what timescale will she do that? How will she engage with communities so that Scotland’s economy works for them and supports a wellbeing and a vibrant economy?

The UK Government’s proposed arrangements for the UK shared prosperity fund tell us three things.

First, the UK Government has little interest in keeping the Conservative Party’s 2019 manifesto commitment that it would “at a minimum” match the level of EU spending. What we see being proposed is a mere 40 per cent of what was provided by the European Union structural funds. I know that we are all becoming accustomed to the Prime Minister’s broken promises, but that is bad for communities and bad for trust in politics.

Secondly, the UK Government also has little interest in respecting devolution or enhancing community participation and engagement in decision making. Even though money will be spent on matters that fall within devolved competencies, such as transport, skills and economic development, the Scottish Government and our communities have little, if any, say in allocation decisions. That is worrying, given how different the economic development landscape is in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK, never mind what it says about devolution.

Thirdly, we will have to work even harder than we did before to tackle the inequalities that exist across and within different parts of Scotland and reorient our economy towards wellbeing and the just transition.

Last summer, the Institute for Government published a report on the UKSPF, highlighting key risks of the UK Government’s approach that included fragmentation of service provision, confused accountability, duplication of effort, funding uncertainty and increased intergovernmental tensions. The same report set out several recommendations to mitigate those risks: clear allocation criteria; reduced bureaucracy—the irony of a Brexiteer Government talking about additional red tape is not lost on me; better consultation with and engagement of devolved nations; genuine partnership working; match funding models; clarification of governance and operational management; and more. To date, nothing that we have seen from the UK Government addresses any of those matters.

A fundamental problem with the UK’s economy during the past 40-plus years has been a deep-seated reluctance to invest in the infrastructure that we need for the wellbeing of our citizens. It has been worse in England, where, for example, privatised water companies have paid massive dividends to shareholders while allowing the water and sewerage systems to degrade.

We desperately need more money for infrastructure—for investment in our future—including in the telecommunications on which much of our lives will be based through high-speed broadband, on which we lag behind many countries. We need the energy and storage investment to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, as has become painfully obvious over the past year, with exponentially rising fossil fuel costs.

What we have here, however, is a drastic cut to the funds that we would have received through the EU. Many people voted for Brexit because they thought that it would mean more investment in the fabric that our society relies on. It is clear that the leaders of the Brexit campaign had no interest in keeping their promises, but it is vital that we do not repeat the failure so that those people are failed twice.

Public borrowing is still cheap, and we can build the houses, the railways and the high-speed broadband that we need. We can support genuine community regeneration that recognises local variations and specificities by having governance and engagement structures that centre local voices. Yet the UK Tory Government insists—yet again—on impoverishing us, now and in the future. I can only speculate why, but I know that we cannot afford it now, and we certainly cannot afford it in the future.

Thank you very much.

Convener, I have finished my questions, but I know that Farah Farzana, Trishna Singh and Joy Lewis want to come in. Is it okay if I bring Farah in?

Thank you very much for that, Farah. Trishna, you wanted to come in on this.

Thank you, Trishna, and thanks for that link. One of my colleagues will probably want to come in on that later. Joy Lewis, did you want to come in?

Thank you very much, Mariam. That was helpful and interesting. I am especially struck by your point about undocumented workers, all the added complexities of that situation and the cracks that they fall through anyway. When the pandemic is added to that, the difficulties are magnified and exacerbated.

Sara Medel Jiménez, you talked about women being seen as a soft touch. To what extent was that magnified during the pandemic? I see in the chat that a couple of other people want to come in, but I invite Sara to go first. Do you want to say a bit more about that, partly in answer to my original question but also on the soft target element that you spoke about in your opening comments?

Farah, would you like to respond?

Good morning. Thank you for being with us—I appreciate that juggling various things is not easy. I appreciate the time that you have taken to give evidence to the committee.

I have a couple of questions about the disproportionate impact of Covid on women, and BAME women in particular, which has been reported in the media and which many of you have mentioned. I am interested in understanding the complexities of the issue, including how BAME women have experienced disproportionate susceptibility to Covid and disproportionate financial burdens.

I think that it was Mariam Ahmed who talked about digital poverty, a lack of digital connectivity and the knock-on consequences, so I will come to her first. Could you say a bit more about the personal experiences of some of the women you support whom Amina has worked with? What were those women’s experiences of the lockdown and the restrictions that were placed on society as a whole from the point of view of their ability to maintain any kind of work-life balance and, importantly, the impact on their mental health?

I have another question, which I will ask after we have heard from Mariam.