Good afternoon, everyone. The first item of business this afternoon is a debate on motion S4M-10214, in the name of Angela Constance, on improving entrepreneurship among women and young people.
Cabinet secretary, you have 14 minutes or thereby.
I am very pleased to open this debate on promoting entrepreneurship among women and young people. If we are to achieve our potential as a nation, it is important that we give as many people as possible the opportunity to fulfil their potential as individuals. Through entrepreneurship, people have the opportunity not just to create jobs for themselves, but to create jobs and exciting opportunities for others, thereby contributing to our goal of sustainable economic growth.
Last November, the Scottish Government published “Scotland CAN DO: Becoming a World-leading Entrepreneurial and Innovative Nation”, which is our national statement of intent to become a world-leading entrepreneurial and innovative nation. A key aspect of “Scotland CAN DO” is its focus on helping those who are less represented in the world of entrepreneurship and enterprise. We want everyone in Scotland to be in a position to realise their full potential in this field.
In particular, it is recognised that women and young people could benefit from further assistance and support, not only because they are less represented, which is not right, but because of their huge economic potential. It has been estimated that, if women’s participation in enterprise matched men’s, it could boost our economy by about 5 per cent. For the sake of all our futures, that kind of bonus simply cannot be ignored.
I am sure that colleagues will welcome the fact that “Scotland CAN DO” is backed by £3 million of financial support this year alone. At the same time, we are clear that neither money nor desire is enough to achieve the lasting cultural change that is also required.
“Scotland CAN DO” is clear about the importance of collaboration across the public, private and third sectors. Furthermore, we wish to promote a values-led entrepreneurship, in which the goal of economic growth goes hand in hand with the goal of forging a better society. I believe that only in that way can we be sure of reaping the full benefits of entrepreneurship for our nation.
It is clear that the journey of developing an entrepreneurial mindset and behaviours must begin in our schools. Enterprise education is not so much about teaching enterprise as it is about being enterprising in our whole approach to learning and life. It is important that our young people have the opportunity to experience and develop an understanding of the nature of business, for example through high-quality work placements.
It is evident that a lot of great activity already goes on in our schools, either independently or with the help of organisations such as Young Enterprise Scotland, Micro-Tyco, the Bad Idea Organisation and the Social Enterprise Academy. That activity has been encouraged by the likes of Sir Tom Hunter. In his support for Micro-Tyco, he has recognised the importance of embedding entrepreneurial attitudes from an early age.
Some of the stories of pupils’ entrepreneurial endeavours are really inspiring. However, there are many demands on teachers’ time, so we need to make it as easy as possible for school staff to take up the baton of enterprise education and run with it. Therefore, and as is outlined in “Scotland CAN DO”, we want to develop a resource for schools that will make it easier for them to identify and draw on the range of support that exists. That way, even more school pupils will get an understanding of what entrepreneurship means for them.
In building on that platform, we are also keen to help our colleges and universities to develop stronger focus and expertise, particularly in drawing out their students’ entrepreneurial talents. The young innovators challenge, which we have supported in recent years, aims to do just that. The challenge is run by the Scottish Institute for Enterprise and is all about guiding students through the process of developing a business idea and building it towards an actual solution. The focus of this year’s challenge is social innovation. Scotland’s students have been invited to submit ideas on things such as healthcare and green energy. The challenge is a very good example of the diversity of entrepreneurship and its relevance to everyday life.
Meanwhile, we are proud to support the roll-out of the bridge 2 business initiative, which aims to inspire and support college students and to connect them to business. It follows a very successful pilot at the City of Glasgow College, in which more than 400 students took part.
In addition to the education system, we can be proud of what is developing into a rich support network for budding young entrepreneurs. We have heard of the excellent on-going work of the Prince’s Trust, which offers grants and loans to ambitious young entrepreneurs through the Prince’s Trust Youth Business Scotland. We also have We Are The Future, which last year ran the largest entrepreneurship event for young people in Britain and which this year is taking some of Scotland’s brightest young entrepreneurs to San Francisco for their first international start-up summit. In a similar vein, we are supporting Power of Youth to run a series of residential events, this year and next, that will support the development of young entrepreneurs with international scope.
We can see that young people have options to explore entrepreneurship. The key thing, as far as I am concerned, is to make sure that all our young people are aware of those opportunities and have the confidence to take advantage of them.
Female entrepreneurship is an equally high priority for this Government. It is not only a question of diversity or inclusion, crucial though those are; it is also a simple economic imperative. As I mentioned earlier, if women’s participation in business matched that of men, it could boost the economy by 5 per cent. That equates to about £7.6 billion, which is a not-insignificant amount by anyone’s reckoning. It could also create around 35,000 jobs, which is why I was pleased recently to attend the launch of the new “Women in Enterprise” action framework, not far from here at Cranachan & Crowdie, just up the High Street.
On the very important point about women in business, does the cabinet secretary agree that any policy to encourage enterprise—for females or anyone—has to be traced back into the available skills and training? Looking to Labour’s amendment, does she agree that the lack of both part-time and full-time college places for women, including returning women, is a severe impediment to their picking up the qualifications and skills that will spur them on into enterprise?
I am glad that Ms Marra could turn up to this afternoon’s debate. Once again, we are revisiting some well-rehearsed arguments about college reform. As Ms Marra well knows, the difficulty with head count as she measures it is that it treats courses that last a few hours the same as it treats higher national diploma courses. With the important college reform, we are trying to ensure that through regionalisation there is a much more localised response to skills needs.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No, thank you. I am still answering Ms Marra’s question.
The move towards full-time courses with recognised qualifications has been to the benefit of young men and women and has had very positive outcomes. More full-time students are studying for recognised qualifications—the figure is up by 2,000—and the number of higher national certificate achievements is up by 36 per cent.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No.
I must point out that part-time courses and, indeed, older learners are not being excluded as a result of that. If people are serious about women taking their rightful place in the economy, we must ensure that women from all backgrounds can access the provision that will get them into work, self-employment or other well-paid career opportunities.
As I was saying, I had the great opportunity of meeting the female proprietors of Cranachan & Crowdie when the “Women in Enterprise” action framework was launched, and it was great to see that some of the stock and produce in the shop came from female winners of the Scottish EDGE—encouraging dynamic growth entrepreneurs—competition. At this point, I should note that 46 per cent of the Scottish EDGE winners were women.
The action framework that we launched sets out a range of actions to help and encourage more women to set up and succeed in businesses. This is a very exciting piece of work that I have been involved with and which the Scottish Government has been pleased to support right from the start. Indeed, we have supported Women’s Enterprise Scotland in leading on this important work with no less than £70,000 over two years, which has among other things helped with the development of an exciting new network of female role models and mentors.
At the event, I had the great pleasure of meeting some of those ambassadors, who hail from a range of backgrounds, business sectors and locations. The fact that they have all undertaken their own unique journey to get to where they are now makes them extremely well equipped to connect and engage with a wide audience that might range from schoolgirls to experienced female businesswomen. The key thing is to encourage more and more women to see themselves as entrepreneurs and to be ambitious in what they set out to achieve.
It is well known that women can and do face different and additional challenges and barriers, particularly when they have to balance the demands of family and caring responsibilities. In my view, that makes women potentially more equipped to be successful in the world of business, but we must make a concerted effort to bring those barriers down.
I believe that the framework in “Scotland CAN DO” and the “Women in Enterprise” framework set out a direction of travel that could help us to change radically our economic fortunes and the way our society functions. The new economy requires new ideas, not to mention ideals, and women and young people can play a very significant role not only in promoting those new ideas and ideals but in growing our economy.
Before I move the motion, I intimate that I will not support Labour’s amendment, because it misrepresents the nature and ambition of college reform and is an attempt to take the debate backward, not forward. I will, however, support the Tory amendment, because I and the spokesperson from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities are on record as welcoming final publication of the Wood report—both of us have described the Wood report as “a landmark”—and I will be working very closely with COSLA on plans to implement it. In fact, on 17 June, I will be reporting back to Parliament on the issue in the form of a ministerial statement.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the positive impact of entrepreneurial activity by women and young people on the Scottish economy; affirms its commitment to working with public, private and third sector partners to make Scotland a world-leading entrepreneurial nation by ensuring that all of Scotland’s people are better able to participate in entrepreneurial activity, and welcomes the work undertaken as part of Scotland CAN DO and Women in Enterprise, a framework and action plan to deliver public, private and third sector partnerships to bolster entrepreneurial activity among women and young people.
14:44
First of all, Presiding Officer, I apologise for being slightly late in getting to the chamber this afternoon.
This is not the first time that we have come to the chamber to address the impacts of gender inequality on our economy, and nor will it be the last. However, I hope that this debate will not rage on for too much longer and that, very soon, it will be recognised across Scotland, the UK, Europe and the wider world that our economy will be stronger, more prosperous and more sustainable only when women are an integral driving force in it.
Today we are focused on what can be done here in Scotland to allow women to set up their own businesses. Already this year we have seen movement from the Scottish Government on the role of women in our economy and decision making. Nicola Sturgeon committed to gender quotas on the boards of private companies as she launched the white paper for independence, and Shona Robison upset her loyal horses in the Dundee Scottish National Party last week by committing to 40 per cent gender quotas on public boards. She might still have to win that debate in the unreformed ranks of her own councillors and party, but she will find friends on these benches for that policy. Long committed as a party to 50:50 representation, and driving that through our own elected structures, Labour lodged amendments on 40:40:20 gender quotas for public boards two years ago. The SNP voted against my amendments that day, but I am delighted that it has now been won round to the policy.
Why are women’s voices on these boards important? For the same reason that we must do everything that we can to let women’s business flourish: because when only one part of the community is represented, or is predominantly represented, decisions are made in that section’s favour. That applies to business and consumption as well as decisions for public services.
I am a co-convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on computer games. That industry is dominated by men. In several discussions, privately with the sector and publicly in the cross-party group, the gender issue has been raised. How can we get more women into the computer games industry? How can we get more women to start their own gaming companies? I asked the industry experts why that is important, and they answered that it is because women are becoming bigger consumers of games and the online experience, so more female-intuitive products will sell better and more to female consumers. That makes sense to me. Clearly, the female market in gaming is not yet fully exploited, but it will probably only be so when women are designing the games and leading the companies that market and sell them.
Having more women in business is about economic expansion. It is about exploiting new markets and finding opportunities in new markets. I put that thesis to the Entrepreneurial Exchange in a conversation that I had with it yesterday, in advance of this debate. It agreed with the position. It also raised issues of women’s confidence to take the plunge into business and identified the tendency of women who are returning to work after their children’s early years to take the decision at that point in their lives—perhaps in their late 30s or early 40s—to set up a business.
It was with that view from industry experts in mind that I analysed the findings of the Government’s proposals for women in enterprise. There is much in there that I think will be useful, such as the mentoring and networking schemes, and the role model project. I was pleased to see that the Scottish Government will be reaching out beyond the public sector networks and working hand in hand with the Prince’s Trust, Entrepreneurial Spark and the Entrepreneurial Exchange. As ever, those schemes will be successful through the use of key ambassadors and an awareness of the support that is available for them.
On gender-specific support—point 4 in the minister’s report—I know that the Scottish Government will hold conversations with the banks to encourage them to develop their female customers’ businesses. However, will the minister return to the chamber at a later date to update us on how those conversations go and what commitments or initiatives the banks in Scotland are taking to move that forward? It is good to hold the conversations but, if that is going to be part of the Government’s strategy, we need to be able to scrutinise what action is being taken and how that is going.
I turn to the amendments to the motion. Labour will support the Conservative amendment at decision time, as we agree that there is much in the report of the Wood commission that is to be commended. Indeed, until I received the motion, I had half expected this afternoon’s debate to be on that report, as it was published earlier this week. I hope that we will have a chance to debate that extremely important document in full before the summer recess.
Johann Lamont and I met Sir Ian Wood just last week. We are very grateful to him for the time and commitment that he has put into examining the challenges around youth employment in Scotland. It is a seminal report that contains many key recommendations, and I know that the cabinet secretary will want to bring it before Parliament for debate, to ensure that we scrutinise it and do it justice straight after its publication.
I turn to the Labour Party’s amendment to the Government motion. We have put college places on the agenda for today’s debate because we cannot seriously consider new opportunities for women and youth skills while ignoring the underfunding of our colleges. Opportunities in further education are central to the substance of the debate and they underpin the proposals in the Wood commission’s report, which the cabinet secretary is backing.
I was extremely surprised by the cabinet secretary’s response to my intervention. She seemed to suggest that I was misrepresenting the nature of college reform. The Labour amendment says:
“the loss of 140,000 college places since 2007-08 is undermining the achievement of this objective.”
The statistic that there are 140,000 fewer college places since this Government took power is taken straight from the cabinet secretary’s agency, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council.
Does Ms Marra acknowledge that the head count has reduced because the number of full-time equivalents and full-time courses has increased? Does she also acknowledge that the funding floor of £522 million that has been allocated to the college sector, which will increase to £526 million, is more than Labour ever invested in the sector in any one year?
The cabinet secretary can dance on the head of a pin on the issue, but any member of the Parliament who speaks to people in their communities who are on waiting lists for college places and who understands the struggle that women returners face in getting into college will know that her statistics do not represent the reality of the situation.
Does Ms Marra not accept that the number of full-time equivalents is the accepted measure of how many people are at college? That is the measure that is accepted by all statisticians, including those in the Scottish Parliament information centre, which recently said that FTE numbers were stable. Indeed, the Scottish Government had 116,399 extra places in 2012-13, which exceeds our manifesto commitment on full-time equivalent places.
I accept the information that the Scottish funding council has given me, which is that there are 140,000 fewer college places. The environment is much more difficult for women who want to go back to college.
As the Entrepreneurial Exchange identified, women who make the decision to go into business in their late 30s or early 40s are less likely to do so if they have not been able to pick up qualifications and skills at college in their early 20s. We know that the Scottish Government’s current focus on 16 to 19-year-olds is having a detrimental impact on women returners. As always, we need to trace the policy further back to ensure that women can make the decision to start their own businesses. College places must be available to them.
We make no apology for again highlighting the college sector, as it underpins the growth of business and the recommendations in the Wood commission’s report, which it is critical are implemented. If the Scottish Government is committed to both those objectives, it would be wise to accept our amendment and to seriously review the number of college places that Scotland needs. If it fails to do so, the objectives of the Wood commission and those on women and entrepreneurship will be seriously undermined.
I move amendment S4M-10214.1, to insert at end:
“; believes that, in order to improve entrepreneurship among women and young people in Scotland, it is essential to have a world-class further education sector to provide the training and skills that are essential to meet the long-term needs of the economy, and considers that the loss of 140,000 college places since 2007-08 is undermining the achievement of this objective”.
14:54
As the first man to speak in the debate, which I suspect will have its own gender imbalance, I feel a little outnumbered. However, I am sure that the Presiding Officer will protect me.
Do not count on it.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s giving us the opportunity to debate the important issue of improving entrepreneurship. It is fair to say that, as a country, our record on that has generally not been good. Over many years, our business start-up rate has lagged behind that of the United Kingdom as a whole, although I note that the latest statistics show that the number of new business incorporations is at an all-time high.
As Angela Constance pointed out, we have a gender gap. For whatever reason, men are more likely to take risks in setting up businesses than women are. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee identified and highlighted some such concerns in our report last year on the Scottish Government’s draft budget for 2014-15.
Last week, the University of Strathclyde’s Hunter centre for entrepreneurship published its global entrepreneurship monitor report for 2013. It contains interesting observations about the differences between men and women when they set up businesses. According to the Hunter centre, men and women entrepreneurs tend to create different types of businesses and to fund their start-ups differently. Half of all the businesses that women run are consumer orientated. In comparison with their counterparts in similar nations, Scottish female business owners are less likely to export, and fewer of them expect to grow their business significantly in the next five years. In comparison with their counterparts elsewhere in the UK, female entrepreneurs are more likely to completely self-fund their business, which has an impact on the scale of businesses that they can create and how quickly their businesses are likely to grow.
According to the report, male and female entrepreneurs have different motivations, in that wealth creation tends to be of secondary importance to most women, although not all. Women entrepreneurs tend to identify existing customer needs that are not being met. They use information from working experience and networks—especially family members—to create solutions to meet unmet needs.
The cabinet secretary’s motion refers to the can do programme and the women in enterprise initiative, which are welcome. The can do programme sets out a framework to increase entrepreneurship and innovation activity from individuals and businesses, which is to result in more businesses being formed and in new products and services from existing businesses. The stated ambition is that people from all walks of life will develop entrepreneurial skills. If I have a criticism of that approach, it is that it is heavy on ambition but light on detailed proposals to take the ambition forward.
In her speech and her amendment, Jenny Marra drew attention to the cut in college places under the Scottish National Party Government, which is having a negative impact on women coming into the workforce and developing entrepreneurial skills. That is a perfectly fair point to make, and we will be happy to support the Labour amendment. However, the issue is perhaps a distraction from the debate’s main theme so, if Jenny Marra will forgive me, the remainder of my remarks will be on our amendment, which refers to the excellent Wood report, published on Tuesday.
The Conservatives have for years argued for an improvement in vocational education, and I am delighted that Sir Ian Wood’s commission has supported that objective. Although unemployment as a whole is reducing, youth unemployment is still a problem. According to the report, the youth unemployment level is 18.8 per cent, which is more than double that of the average working-age population. One in five of our young people aspire to get a job but cannot get one.
Of the 50 per cent of our young people who do not go to university, very few leave school with vocational qualifications that have labour market currency. For school pupils, work experience—which is vital in the modern world—is generally limited to one week in secondary 4. As Sir Ian Wood’s report says, that is simply not good enough.
The report recommends that youngsters of all abilities should have the opportunity to follow industry and vocational pathways alongside academic studies. The report proposes new school-college vocational partnerships, as well as an option to do the first year of a three to four-year apprenticeship while still at school. There is also a very important focus on the need to improve the status of vocational education so that it is not seen, as it often is, as a second-best alternative for those who are unwilling or unable to go down the academic route.
We should look to the example of Germany, which for years has been a leader in Europe in science and innovation and has undoubtedly retained its manufacturing base to a much greater extent than we in this country have. I have no doubt that a major factor in that has been the attractiveness of careers in science, engineering and technology, not necessarily at a graduate level, but at a technician level. There is no sense in Germany that people who do those jobs are in any way second class to those in other professions. That is crucial to how we will approach the subject and develop better career opportunities and a more entrepreneurial culture for our young people. We need to learn from Germany. It was good to see that recognised in Sir Ian Wood’s report, particularly in the recommendation that a focus on the STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—should be at the heart of the development of Scotland’s young workforce.
There is a great deal in Sir Ian Wood’s report. I appreciate that it was published only on Tuesday, so it is unreasonable to expect even a cabinet secretary as able as Angela Constance to come up with a detailed response so soon, but my amendment welcomes the recommendations and asks the Scottish Government
“to bring forward plans to implement these recommendations as soon as possible”.
I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s indication of support for that and for my amendment.
It is important that we all work together to see better vocational education in Scotland to assist both employment and entrepreneurship among our young people. For that reason, I have pleasure in moving my amendment.
I move amendment S4M-10214.3, to insert at end:
“; notes the recommendations of the Commission for Developing Scotland’s Young Workforce, chaired by Sir Ian Wood, which are designed to move toward better qualified, work-ready and motivated young people with skills relevant to modern employment opportunities, both as employees and entrepreneurs; welcomes the proposals to improve vocational education, and calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward plans to implement these recommendations as soon as possible”.
15:01
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I am not especially qualified to do so, as I am not a woman or young any more, but I am ready to stand beside Murdo Fraser in his defence on that side of the debate. [Interruption.] Some are saying that that is not a change.
The debate is a celebration of the potential that we have in Scotland in our women and young people. I agree with a lot of what has been said and put on record my party’s support for the Wood commission’s all-hands-on-deck approach. We need that approach if we are to improve youth employability.
The message from Sir Ian Wood’s report is that giving more young people the chance that they need to get on in life is a collective responsibility. The public, private and third sectors need to play their part, with every school, college, university, business and Government stepping up to the plate. That is truly a real challenge that has been thrown down, but it is a challenge that the Liberal Democrats accept without reservation. In that light, we are pleased to support the Conservative Party’s amendment.
There is no doubting the talents and the potential of women and young people across Scotland, but we need to do much more to unlock that potential to ensure that every individual has the opportunity to fulfil it. I recognise much of what the minister said about the rich support network that is out there to try to nurture support so that young people can achieve their potential with the range of organisations and facilities that she outlined.
Just as we recognise the work that the Scottish Government is doing in the area, it is worth recognising some of the significant changes that have happened at the UK level that assist us in achieving that ambition. The shared, flexible parental leave that the coalition Government at Westminster brought in should be welcomed as a means by which both parents can keep strong links with their workplaces and organisations can be helped to attract and retain women employees. Likewise, tax-free childcare will help working families across Scotland. In the latest budget, the UK Government increased the cost cap in tax-free childcare to £10,000. That means that families will receive up to £2,000 of childcare support per child, which is two thirds more than was originally planned. That approach very much complements the work that the Scottish Government has done on expanding childcare and nursery education, and we support it.
However, I want to concentrate on the STEM subjects, which, as someone who studied biology, is an area that is close to my heart. It is a hugely valuable area economically, but we need to put in an awful lot more effort to unlock the potential of and retain female STEM students and professionals. Around two thirds of those who study life sciences in further, higher and postgraduate education are women, but that is not reflected in the workplace, where just 46 per cent of employees are female. The rate of loss of women in the move from higher education to employment in STEM is more than double the rate for their male counterparts, with 73 per cent of female graduates leaving the STEM industry. What is more, 21 per cent of female graduates are unemployed. That is a massive loss to Scotland’s skill base, when the STEM and life sciences sectors are flourishing.
At board level, in 2010, fewer than one in five directors of life sciences companies in Scotland were female and only 9 per cent of professors in STEM subjects were women. The number of women declines rapidly the further up the ladder one looks in the university sector. “Tapping all our Talents—Women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: a strategy for Scotland”, which was published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 2012, concluded that that wasted female talent is
“a serious loss across the whole economy”
and that
“a doubling of women’s high-level skill contribution to the economy would be worth as much as £170 million per annum to Scotland”.
More needs to be done to ensure that that talent is retained, valued and recognised in the STEM sector.
A lot of good work has already been done. A recent Equate Scotland conference focused on supporting and developing female STEM staff and students and highlighted the positive impact of the Athena SWAN recognition scheme. At an industry level, the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline has signed the WISE chief executive officer charter, to demonstrate the company’s active support for increasing the participation of women at all levels in STEM. We should recognise that and celebrate it.
The Labour Party amendment refers to the massive hit that college places have taken under the Government. Colleges are essential for training and skills. We need to ensure that high-quality further education continues to be an option in Scotland. Lifelong learning and the ability to upskill are essential and are particularly valuable in areas such as STEM, as courses can be focused to meet specific employer demands or to provide refresher training for those who have taken a career break. We will support Labour’s amendment.
Addressing the gender imbalance in STEM will take the same kind of all-hands-on-deck approach as the Wood commission has espoused for tackling youth employment. We should embrace both those challenges without hesitation. By doing so, we will unlock not just the individual potential of women and young people but the valuable contribution that they can make to Scotland’s skill base and our economy.
15:08
I will speak about the early part of the Government motion, which states:
“That the Parliament recognises the positive impact of entrepreneurial activity by women”.
I will do so by referring to some of the entrepreneurial women in my patch in the Scottish Borders and Midlothian. Some of what I will say will provide examples of the points that Murdo Fraser made about the kind of activities that women enter into. Most of the women that I will mention are involved in the consumer area and are family orientated. I was interested in Murdo Fraser’s speech, as I identified those points in my own.
Where better to start than in my patch in Gorebridge? The woman in question is Lynn Mann of Supernature Oils, which started as a sideline, as enterprises so often do for women. At first, she planned to commit two years to help to get a family business off the ground, but it is now a full-time and expanding job. She says that, although her father encouraged her to be entrepreneurial, she had to overcome cultural and social hurdles as a potential businesswomen. I will come back to that but, in passing, I say that my parents had a significant role in encouraging young women to be adventurous and ambitious.
My father made sure that his four daughters knew from the start that they would and should have the same opportunities as their brother. That was in the days when girls—at least, working-class girls like me—generally left school at 15, got engaged at 18, got married at 20 and had their first child at 22. I, partly due to my father’s intervention, did not follow that route map but so many girls in those days did. Indeed, some of the route maps that girls are destined to take are deeply embedded in the culture even all these years on.
However, to go back to Lynn Mann, she laughingly explains on the Supernature Oils website how she had 22 jobs before the business took off but that, somehow, all that experience has been useful in making the family business of cold pressed rapeseed oil succeed. That, together with support from the EDGE fund and from ESpark, has done the trick, as I saw for myself on a recent visit to the business, where Lynn, her husband and an expanding number of employees press, infuse and bottle the product. Lynn is now a women’s enterprise ambassador, helping other women to find their business feet.
There are other models for women—mentors-in-waiting, as it were. There is Ruth Hinks, who was master chocolatier and UK confectioner of the year in 2011. Her business, Cocoa Black, is located in Peebles, with dangerously delicious chocolate and extraordinary sculpting of chocolate exhibits. She has also now expanded into a chocolate and pastry school above the cafe at the Cuddy Bridge in Peebles. I warn people, if they cross that threshold, not to count the calories. Ruth Hinks’s entrepreneurial DNA kicked in when, at a young age, she asked her parents for money for some must have gizmo. She was told that she had to raise the money herself. Dismissing a potato-growing enterprise because it would take too long for the potatoes to develop to be marketable and there would not be a high profit margin, she made her first chocolate Easter egg and the rest, as they say, is Hinks history.
Then there is Debra Riddell of Breadshare, which is a community interest company involving the community in making nutritious bread using only natural ingredients. I have had a go—marginally successfully. Breadshare is currently located at Lamancha, near Whitmuir farm, where members will find Heather Anderson and her husband and their impressive organic produce. Whitmuir is in the process of becoming the first community-owned farm in Scotland. I have even bought a share.
I was interested in the cabinet secretary’s reference to entrepreneurship in healthcare, because, as we know, enterprising and entrepreneurial women are not only to be found in business. My final example is about Linda Davidson and Rebecca Wade, who are midwives. Members—if they are still listening—might ask, “How can two midwives be entrepreneurial?”
The two midwives, who are from NHS Borders, recently won an award for partnership working with Scottish Borders Council, to enhance child rearing and parenting services in the Borders. The idea is to work with very vulnerable young mums and sometimes young dads, from antenatal care through to looking after the baby—and indeed, the parents. Linda Davidson and Rebecca Wade are pursuing the idea of a specialised residential facility for vulnerable young parents and their babies, to provide support and help people to learn how to be successful parents, which sometimes involves breaking a cycle of bad parenting that the young parents themselves have experienced.
It is early days, but the ideas of Linda Davidson and Rebecca Wade, which are rooted in their experience—this is where women have the edge; they are very pragmatic—are not just exciting but sensible. I hope that, where I am able to do so, I can help to take those ideas forward.
I have met many more women across the constituency who are in business, the professions and the voluntary sector, and who are full of good and practical ideas. I am sure that other members meet such women. As a nation, we should applaud, encourage, support and value them.
That is partly our job, in delivering childcare, mentoring and help with start-up, for example, and it is partly the job of the formal education system. However, it is also the job of family, friends and the surrounding community to change the culture that Lynn Mann, with whose example I started my speech, encountered, and which many women still encounter and must overcome.
15:14
There are now more female than male graduates, so it is shocking that young women should still be victims of outdated and ingrained chauvinism. At least half of the skills base for a new independent Scotland lies with women, whether they are graduates or not, but too many are still frightened to test out their entrepreneurial talent. One young woman told me that it is almost as if the culture is willing us to fail, that setting up a business is too big a gamble, and that we are somehow bound to fail.
That is an attitude that we have to take on head-on and break. Young women should go on, try it, and start out on their own. The worst that can happen is that their first attempt does not work out, but they might end up as the next Anita Roddick, for example. It is not so different from a first job, and it might not be where someone stays for all their life, but the experience gained will take them to the next turning in their life.
Increasing the number of women entrepreneurs to match the number of men would generate more than £7 billion for our economy, which would have a huge impact. The Government wants to achieve that goal, and to make sure that the infrastructure is in place to encourage women, especially young women, to pick up and run with their entrepreneurial ideas.
Last week, at an event in the garden lobby that looked at aids and adaptations, I met Catherine Bland. Catherine had an accident that meant that she had to use crutches for a number of months. Not letting having crutches get in the way of her busy life, she developed a homemade product that she called the Hopper. It is essentially a big belt or apron with lots of pockets in it that holds everything needed for a busy day. She likes to bake, so she could carry all her baking stuff. When she wanted to read, she could carry her magazines and her phone. Other people could use it to carry their medication and other things. It is a brilliant idea, and Catherine developed that idea into a product that has helped to transform the lives of many people who have had injuries or have disabilities. It is a simple idea, but it is a brilliant idea.
There is a 13 per cent gap between men’s and women’s full-time hourly rates of pay, and a 33.7 per cent gap when we compare women’s part-time hourly rate with men’s full-time hourly rate. If we had any doubt that women are undervalued, what about the fact that parental childcare is not counted towards the gross domestic product and is considered to be leisure? Let us test that out. Many members will have brought up toddlers or spent time with them—did they call it leisure? In some cases it was, but a lot of it was hard work, and our skills in people management and negotiation are well honed in that situation.
Just seven of Scotland’s top 30 listed companies had a female executive two years ago. Only 37 of 242 board positions, executive and non-executive, in the top 30 companies were occupied by women in 2012. Even though there are annual increases, 27.6 per cent was the figure in 2012, which left 84.7 per cent of seats being filled by men.
Scottish women make up 52 per cent of the population, and in October 2013, female employment in Scotland reached its highest level since 1992 at 69 per cent. Let us look at the progress on that. Female self-employment has increased in recent years from 80,800 in 2008 to 93,900 in 2013, which is an increase of 16.2 per cent. At the moment, only 21 per cent of small and medium-sized enterprise employers are women-led, and only 31 per cent of self-employed Scots are women.
To address that enterprise gap, in 2013 the Scottish Government established a series of workshops chaired by Professor Sara Carter, former head of the Hunter centre at the University of Strathclyde, and Jackie Brierton of Women’s Enterprise Scotland. That is a great advance, and such a can-do attitude reaps great rewards.
As I said earlier, women now make up the majority of university graduates but we do not see that reflected in our boardrooms. The Scottish Government does not have the power to change that situation. We have some and we are doing what we can, but we need that yes vote to take it further. My colleague, cabinet secretary Shona Robison, says in her report “Women on Board: Quality through Diversity”:
“Our aim for Scotland is to make the best use of talents of all of our people, regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or religion.”
I do not think that those are just words. The actions are being taken just now, and I believe that members from across the chamber support that.
By taking action on these issues and removing the barriers that stand in the way of women realising their potential, we will improve economic participation—£7 billion-worth of economic participation. We will also contribute to making Scotland a wealthier and fairer place, which we all want, and ensure that no one is held back because of their gender and that public bodies are more fairly reflective of society as a whole.
We can improve the situation. We are already very active in listening and in challenging assumptions—I think that we all do that every day of our lives. We are encouraging employers to offer more flexible, home-based and part-time work. We are also seeking to get rid of the stereotyping that goes on in the modern apprenticeship programme: the cabinet secretary will be very well aware that one of my bugbears is seeing posters that show men with ladders, because they are building, and women with scissors, because they are cutting hair. I would like to swap that around. Let us give the women the ladders and the hard hats and the men the aprons and the scissors. I think that that would be great, but that is just a wee aside from me. We know that we have made great strides in apprenticeships and we continue to make those strides, but getting women into apprenticeships has to be a priority.
The most crucial and obvious change is in the transformational childcare policy. Once we raise the money to do that, the difference that it will make to the opportunities for women is threefold. There will be more women in work, which increases the tax take; more job opportunities in childcare to meet that aspiration; and a more positive, motivated outlook for women and their children.
History has dictated that women stay at home minding the children or elderly relatives. Not only do they not get paid for that; they give up any right to the career that they previously had. Poor supply and high costs of childcare prevent women from working. It is in recognition of that reality, and the follow-on truth that their absence constricts our economic growth, that this Government has promised an entirely different approach to childcare that will make that difference. We have the foresight to see that if we open the doors, women will come through into the workplace with competence and confidence. If we create those opportunities, the results are endless.
15:22
I very much welcome the strategy and the opportunity to debate it. I am pleased to see the cabinet secretary in her place, focusing on the gender aspect of her brief.
I have been reflecting on the past few years and, in particular, the youth unemployment crisis that we have experienced and from which, to a degree, we are still recovering. Governments of all hues across the whole of Europe responded to that crisis by appealing to the big multinational companies. They competed to bring new jobs and new facilities to their respective shores, often with cash incentives. A couple of years after that, many of those companies were embroiled in tax avoidance schemes, which led to a huge amount of public outrage. The political response to that was to start to talk about a more responsible capitalism, whereby we say to companies that we expect them to pay their taxes, but if they are receiving public money we expect them also to pay a living wage and to build apprenticeships into their contracts, and not to promote a zero-hours culture or to be involved in blacklisting—in fact, we expect them never to have done so. However, it has always been about bartering with the big guys, and too often the big guys win. We can make demands of them, but if we go too far we push them away and lose the investment in the country’s future.
Can we imagine a different type of economy—one that is built on home-grown businesses that pride themselves on being decent employers, rooted in the communities that they employ and which they buy from and sell to? Realising that ambition requires a change of culture.
Arguably, we do not value businesses enough in Scotland. As a nation, we have a proud history of public service but perhaps we are less proud of people who choose to make their own money and of how they go about doing that. Being pro-business in Scotland tends to mean believing in low taxes and deregulation, when it could be about being an enterprising nation that is confident and engenders skills and a belief in our nation’s great traditions and passing them on to the next generation. Setting up their own business could be good not only for the individual but for their community. That type of attitude has to start in schools, colleges and universities. Only when we get a critical mass in the next generation will we be able to drive the cultural change that we are looking for.
That applies in a number of ways. We need to think about the debates that we have had in the chamber about work readiness and what that means. We often talk about work readiness in the context of matching the skills that come out of our schools and colleges with the skills that business needs, but it is always about the supply chain for somebody else’s business; we never talk about what it means in the context of setting up one’s own business.
In all college and university courses, and in schools, there should be much more emphasis on setting up a business. Young people should be taught about rates and how they work, about tax and what Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is—and about what would happen if they were to get on the wrong side of HMRC. They should be taught about digitising business and the new opportunities that come from that. They should be taught about markets and how to pitch, turnover versus profit, whether one can recruit to grow and what the balance of risk is. Those are all staple issues for business students, but they should be built into all courses, in all disciplines. They should not just be a unitary extra; students should not be told, “This week, class, we’re going to talk about how to set up your own business.” Those issues should be embedded in the ethos of the work that goes on in our colleges and universities. Setting up a business should be an option for all students. Students in our colleges should be told, “It’s an option for students like you.”
I look at what my college, Edinburgh College, does on a number of campuses around Edinburgh. Mechanics, joiners, hairdressers, web designers and fitness instructors come out of the college every week. They are all predisposed to work for themselves but often that is not an option for them. They could start out with a start-up but they need a bit more help. It does not necessarily have to be a lonely activity. Pairing a web designer with a fitness instructor creates a whole new business model that could be explored. It could be the job of a college, school or university to encourage that type of activity. We need to de-risk the process. Colleges could invest in individuals to help them put their foot on the first step of the ladder, knowing that the rewards of that investment could come back to the college. Colleges could incubate such ideas and encourage people to work together, knowing that the benefits will come back to the college community and benefit everyone else.
I spoke earlier today to a former chair of the Federation of Small Businesses in Edinburgh who is an excellent female role model for women in business in her own right. I asked her what she wants from a strategy that encourages women into business and she said, “More role models.” Funnily enough, I had a similar conversation with an academic at the University of Edinburgh yesterday about the challenges of trying to engage women in science subjects and she, too, talked about role models. We need role models not just at the top of an industry—it is not about the elite—but at every stage of the journey. Yes, Michelle Mone is a fantastic role model for women in business, but Christina McKelvie and Christine Grahame talked about women in their communities who are already running their own businesses and who are also fantastic role models. We need to tell those stories so that women who are thinking about setting up a business can see somebody like them doing the same thing and draw strength from that.
The same applies to women who are already established in a business environment and want to expand their business. They need help to take that risk, employ more people or offer a different product. They need to be able to meet more women like them who have already taken such risks.
The first challenge is to see more women in business, full stop. However, let us not miss out on the opportunity to get it right and have the right mix of women at the forefront of public debate on this agenda. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will take that on board.
15:28
I got slightly concerned as I listened to Murdo Fraser because I actually agreed with him on most aspects. It is worrying that the convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and I seem to agree on quite a number of matters. Perhaps some of my persuasions are rubbing off on him.
Like Willie Rennie and Murdo Fraser, I am male and no longer young—young at heart perhaps—but I perhaps represent a minority group. The cabinet secretary mentioned the can do initiative, which took me back an earlier stage in my life when I was looking forward to my career. In my case, it would have been so simple to sit back and think about barriers, obstacles, hazards and reasons—often presented by my family and teachers—why I should not get into a certain profession. Maybe it is my stubbornness, but I think that it is about the can-do mentality. We need to realise that; I think that the cabinet secretary probably does, thanks to her social work training days. As someone who did not aspire to a degree but who followed a professional qualification, I am aware that that mentality takes ambition, strength and determination. Our young people have the determination and the qualities that can inspire them to become the entrepreneurs of the future.
We must look not only at where we are today but to the future—the mid to long term. I have been reading Sir Ian Wood’s report, which has just been published. Much of it reflects the can-do mentality to which we can all aspire. However, Sir Ian Wood highlights some of the barriers that prevent some of our young people from taking the initial step. Other members have mentioned some of those barriers, such as the culture. That culture is not just down to the way that we are taught in schools; it is also sometimes embedded in the home and our families. Grandparents tell their grandchildren that they should not go into a certain profession and that they would be better sticking to something else. We need to ensure that we break down those stereotypes.
When I was on the Equal Opportunities Committee, we considered women in work and went back to look at how we project things even at nursery and in the education of our young children—even how we present toys to children. When my two girls were four and were asked what they would like from Santa, they asked for racing cars. I thought that we had broken the mould because they wanted racing cars as opposed to Barbies and, when they got the Barbies in a pram, they dismantled the pram and made it into a go-kart. Perhaps we got rid of the stereotypes and perhaps they were doing things that I had aspired to but never managed to do.
We must consider how to provide the appropriate opportunities for our young people in the early stages. The curriculum for excellence is the pathway for that. It opens doors for many of our young children—boys and girls—so that they can aspire to be what they would like to be. We should not create barriers. We should consider their can-do—what they would like to do—and reinforce that as best we can.
Quite rightly, not every young person will aspire to go to university. If they choose to go down the vocational route, we should applaud that. Murdo Fraser was absolutely right—I take that back; he was right, but I cannot give him an “absolutely”—to say that, in Germany, people are rewarded and applauded for going into vocational education. We need tradesmen such as plumbers, mechanics, engineers and electrical engineers.
The member makes an interesting point about Germany. Does he agree that the German situation has been helped by legislative measures that put the onus on business to take on young apprentices and that the Scottish Government should consider similar legislative measures to encourage youth employment?
The Scottish Government has done an absolutely wonderful job of promoting apprenticeships. There are more than 25,000 apprentices. More can always be done, but business can open its doors and encourage more apprentices. Only about 13 per cent of businesses offer apprenticeships to our young people.
Let us take the can-do mentality, promote it and get the job done.
15:34
In their speeches—particularly those about their own constituents—members have shown that there is absolutely no lack of talent and ambition among our young people or among Scottish women.
A number of years ago, the big debate in Scotland was about the low number of business start-ups. We spent a long time wringing our hands and asking whether we had a culture that was hostile to entrepreneurship. I recall from my journalist days that some very bizarre theories were advanced. One theory was that the self-starters had all emigrated to Canada in the 19th century. I am very pleased that we have moved on from that rather negative navel-gazing towards encouraging and supporting the very many people throughout Scotland who are passionate about starting and growing their own business.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to increase the number of entrepreneurs, and the role that the Scotland can do strategy can play. The strategy uses a team Scotland approach to bring together companies, universities, public agencies and customers to take advantage of the opportunities that drive the establishment and growth of new businesses.
We cannot overemphasise the importance of the subject. Reading through the strategy document, I was very impressed. It mentions innovation on page 6, and states that
“demand from consumers ... is the most important factor in the success or failure of businesses.”
Murdo Fraser mentioned a report that said that women are more responsive to consumer demand, and Christine Grahame made a similar point. That is very important.
I agree with Willie Rennie and other members about the importance of getting more women to excel in and make a career of the STEM subjects. I have a daughter who is a professional engineer. I should mention that she played with Barbies when she was young. In fact, when she came home last Christmas, she found the big Barbie make-up stand that she played with when she was a little girl. She dismantled it, retrieving the spring to fix my doorbell, so maybe Barbie has her uses after all.
Although I am very encouraging of the drive to get more women into STEM subjects and technical jobs, we should not forget about women’s responsiveness to consumers and the female economy. Many of the most entrepreneurial women I know work in fashion, beauty and hairdressing, and they set up their own businesses. The challenge in that respect is to ensure that those businesses are properly rewarded and taken seriously.
Did the women to whom Joan McAlpine refers do that by choice or because they felt that it was the only opportunity given the stereotypical aspects of the trade?
I would say that the women to whom I am referring, who run their own beauty and hairdressing businesses, did that by choice. They felt very passionate about the industry.
Although, as the mother of a professional engineer, I totally encourage women to go into technical professions, we have to be careful about the balance. We should not underplay women’s achievements in what we might regard as female industries. We should take the female economy, and women as consumers, seriously, as that is an important part of our economy.
The entrepreneur who I want to praise today is both female and young. She is a fashion designer and manufacturer from Lockerbie called Kelly Alder. She designs and customises shoes and bags and is about to launch her own clothing collection called MISA, which stands for the made in Scotland initiative.
Kelly’s business is called Glitzaratti—as the name suggests, there is a lot of bling involved. She has an extraordinary talent for customising shoes using crystals, beads, diamante and even seashells. I do not think that it is any secret that the cabinet secretary likes her shoes—I would be delighted to invite her to meet Kelly and see some of her designs, because they really are fantastic, and she has sold a lot of them online.
Kelly left a well-paid job to start Glitzaratti, and I want to highlight a bit of her own life story. She says:
“like many other young people I thought”
that the dream of starting a fashion business
“would be nothing more than a pipe dream.”
However,
“after showing the world of facebook some pictures of past designs it all took off with an influx of orders ... within several months”.
Kelly is now running third in the international wedding industry awards, which she is very proud of. I wish her the best of luck with that. The internet means that manufacturers such as her can be based in Lockerbie in Dumfriesshire and sell all over the world.
We have talked about female-orientated industries, and Kelly is absolutely passionate about manufacturing because it is an important aspect of the fashion industry. That is why she called her clothing line the made in Scotland initiative. I understand that there has been a move back to clothing manufacturing in the UK from countries such as China and India, which I think is a good thing. Naturally, it means that the costs can be higher, but the quality is also higher, which certainly comes through in Kelly’s work.
Kelly has moved into a shop front in Dumfries. I asked her before the debate about the challenges that she faced, and she said that although there was a huge number of empty shops in Dumfries High Street, she was unable to get one because the people who own them would much rather that they sat empty than rent them at a reasonable market rate. Therefore, she has moved into a shop that is slightly off the High Street.
Kelly is in her 20s, but older women have a lifetime of experience and the ability to respond to consumer demand. I will talk about a couple of them as well. Heather Hall and Linda Whitelaw have set up a community cafe called The Usual Place in Dumfries. Those women are a fantastic example of the benefits of social enterprise, because they saw a gap in relation to the training of young people with additional support needs. The community cafe will work with the local college to help young people train and work in the hospitality industry. They hope that, as a result, many of them will move into full-time work in the hospitality industry. The two women have secured fantastic premises in the old Dumfries high school dining hall and have been awarded funding from the Big Lottery Fund.
I think that both those examples show that the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit is alive and well in Scotland. Certainly, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor report shows that there has been a rise in early-stage entrepreneurship here. I think that, with the Government’s strategy and commitment, we will see that continue. I feel quite optimistic about the future and think that we have moved past that hand-wringing stage of the past.
15:42
The cabinet secretary said at the beginning of her speech that the enterprise journey begins in school, and I think that we all agree with that.
In fact, that was one of the reasons why the Administration of which I was a part 10 years or so ago set up the determined to succeed strategy to develop enterprise skills in schools. There was a specific fund to facilitate that. I believe that that work is now embedded within the curriculum for excellence and that there is no specific funding. It would be interesting to hear in the cabinet secretary’s winding-up speech exactly how effective or extensive that work has been, because I do not really have any sense of that. However, I think that we all recognise that what happens in schools is of very great importance.
Of course, that work applies to boys and girls, and young men and young women. However, like others, I took my cue from the initial title for the debate—women and the economy—and I assumed until recently that I would be speaking in the debate about the general agenda of new opportunities for women, occupational segregation, women in STEM subjects, equal pay and childcare. The reality is that a great deal of that agenda is still very relevant to the debate’s more narrow focus on enterprise.
On the overarching reality, perhaps Jenny Marra said the most important thing so far in the debate when she talked about the impact of gender equality on the economy. A lot of us come to the issue of gender equality from a human rights perspective, which is absolutely right from the point of view of the rights of individual women. There might be some people who are not totally susceptible to that perspective, but the reality is that there is a fundamental economic argument for gender equality. In a sense, that is at the heart of today’s debate.
Jenny Marra also rightly emphasised the theme of opportunities for women. I will not repeat the issue about colleges in that regard, because I think that our point of view on that is well known. However, if I may, I will take this opportunity to repeat a point that I have raised in two previous debates in the past seven days, although it was the children’s minister, rather than Angela Constance, who was on the front bench for them.
My point is that, in spite of all the good work of Skills Development Scotland, I have concerns that it is perhaps being skewed too much towards young people. Women over 25 are often not getting the support that they need to develop their skills. The example that I have given in two recent debates is the childcare academy in my constituency, which provides wonderful training opportunities for women returning to work. However, for over-25s, the places are not being supported in the way that they were in the past. I take the opportunity to mention that, given that Angela Constance is here in the chamber.
I point out that the youth unemployment rate remains at 18.8 per cent, whereas the unemployment rate for women is 5.9 per cent. I do not think for one minute that we should be moving away from providing support to young people—as was intimated, I think, by Ms Marra in her speech.
I draw Malcolm Chisholm’s attention to some very important initiatives from Fife College and the Offshore Petroleum Industry Training Organisation—OPITO—as well as the energy skills challenge fund run by Skills Development Scotland, which is organising courses for women returners to get into energy, coupled with childcare support.
You may take some extra time, Mr Chisholm.
Okay. I say, just to finish the point, that if we could have 50 per cent of the funding for women under 25 at the childcare academy and 50 per cent for those over 25, that would serve the needs of my constituents.
Willie Rennie spoke about STEM subjects. I will not repeat all the points about that but, through the Royal Society of Edinburgh report, we know that women with science, technology and engineering skills are among Scotland’s untapped resources. That report focused on people with the skills who were not entering work, but the bigger problem lies with women often not going into those areas of work at all, which leads to the whole issue of occupational segregation.
That issue was so helpfully and constructively covered by Sir Ian Wood in his report, which came out this week. Like other members, I assumed that that would be the topic of this debate. It is not, but it is still relevant to the debate. For example, Sir Ian has a recommendation:
“Support networks should be developed for young people entering Modern Apprenticeships in occupations which are currently heavily gender segregated.”
That relates to some of the other recommendations, which we will come to in a moment.
I was going to talk about how gender stereotyping starts in the early years, but I have no time for that. I will therefore focus on the particular subject of the debate: enterprise. Surely occupational segregation and gender stereotyping are relevant to the stark facts that only 21 per cent of Scotland’s 339,000 small and medium-sized enterprises are led by women, and that men are still twice as likely to start businesses compared with women.
If women-led businesses were equal to those of men, we are told, Scotland’s gross value added—GVA—would increase by a staggering £7.6 billion. That reinforces, if anything does, the general point that Jenny Marra made about gender equality and the economy.
I did not think that the Scotland can do report had a great deal of focus on gender, but it is fair to say that the “Women in Enterprise” follow-up document did. Some of the recommendations in that document have already been commended today. They include mentoring, network and peer group support, role model projects and female ambassadors, and the cabinet secretary gave some examples. Other good examples can be given, such as the women in renewable energy network.
A further recommendation is to
“explore the creation of a ‘soft-loan-fund’”.
That leads to the general point that there are a lot of suggestions in the reports and we need to know whether and how they are being implemented and how effective they have been. That leads, in turn, to Jenny Marra’s point about the banking recommendation: an excellent recommendation for gender-specific support for bank staff in order for them to help develop female customers’ businesses. As Jenny Marra said, let us have a report back about how effective that has been.
The recommendations in the Government’s “Women in Enterprise” report were matched by a lot of the suggestions in the “Survey of Women-Owned Businesses in Scotland 2012”, which was carried out by the Hunter centre for entrepreneurship. The priorities that were identified in the Hunter centre report included access to finance, which is relevant to the banking recommendation that I mentioned a moment ago. Access to networking, contacts and mentoring are also mentioned. That reinforces the points that have been made in the Government’s report.
I am almost out of time. There are lots of quotes in the Hunter centre report, and I was wanting to—
I can give you some extra time.
Can you, Presiding Officer? In that case, I can perhaps use more than one quote.
In fact, I will pick out one quote that reinforces Kez Dugdale’s point. I was struck by some of the individual quotations from women that were cited in the Hunter centre report. One was:
“Promote and advertise more successful women-run businesses that will serve as an example and inspiration for all the rest. Maybe it would also help that the number of non-patronising events for women were increased or that there were more female networking groups.”
There are lots of very positive things in that report. All credit to the Government in relation to its “Women in Enterprise” report, too. As always, however, the devil is in the delivery, so I hope that we will hear about that in due course.
15:50
The debate has shown that there is a great deal of consensus across the chamber on this issue. However, the cabinet secretary has said that she will not be supporting the Labour amendment, and I am quite disappointed in the nature of the amendment, as it means that we cannot reach consensus on it.
The Audit Scotland report, “Scotland’s colleges 2013”, says:
“in line with Scottish Government policy, the SFC issued guidance to colleges to reduce the number of courses that did not lead to a recognised qualification or that lasted less than ten hours.”
Those are the very courses that Jenny Marra includes in her enrolment count, which completely misrepresents the situation in Scotland’s colleges. Her enrolment count includes individual learning account-funded courses, which, although I am sure that they were greatly enjoyed by the people who took part in them, did nothing to enhance work ability skills or women’s prospects in the workplace.
Audit Scotland goes on to say:
“The total number of students attending college expressed as FTEs has, however, remained broadly constant”.
Clare Adamson makes an important point, but does she agree that the actual number of FTEs has changed because the Government redefined what an FTE is? It reduced the hours from 720 to 640 and so created an extra student. That explains the discrepancy in the figures.
What I will say is that I fully supported the Scottish Government when it tackled the Tory model of incorporation of colleges, which was leading to colleges being in competition with one another. All colleges have risen to the challenge of delivering the aspirations of the regionalisation model, which is why we are in a much better position to meet the requirements of young people, women returners and men returners in colleges, and businesses in those areas, than we ever have been since the incorporation of colleges by the Tories—which Ms Marra seems to support.
It has been recognised across the chamber that we have an endemic problem, which has to be challenged in all areas: there is a lack of women entrepreneurs and young entrepreneurs. The same barriers exist for women who want to be entrepreneurs as exist for most women in the workplace. We must challenge those barriers if we are going to increase the number of women in all areas of business—especially entrepreneurs.
Anyone who visits my parliamentary office will see a prominent display of something that I believe delivers one of the most powerful messages about women: a poster from Close the Gap that shows a scowling young girl sitting beside a smiling young boy. The caption reads:
“Prepare your daughter for working life. Give her less pocket money than your son.”
That is a very powerful message. Young people who visit my office often challenge me about the poster and say, “That’s so unfair.” It is unfair. There is something about us that means that, as we get into business and grow older, that unfairness sometimes becomes invisible to us.
It is true that that is still the case for women in Scotland. It is shocking that, more than 40 years since the passing of the Equal Pay Act 1970, women are still paid less on average than their male counterparts. A report from the UK’s Office for National Statistics in December 2013 makes for alarming reading. According to the ONS, in 2012 the gender pay gap for full-time workers widened from 9.5 to 10 per cent. For part-time employees, many of whom are women, the gap is even wider, and it grew from 19.6 to 19.7 per cent. Those figures should worry us.
The pay gap is just one example of inequality. There are many others, including women’s representation in politics and STEM professions. The number of women in senior positions in the workplace and in our boardrooms demonstrates that we are a long way from achieving gender equality. That situation affects women in every sector and area of employment. The current system serves scientists and technologists no better than other women workers.
I listened carefully to what my co-convener of the cross-party group on video games technology said about that sector, but I have to say that I am somewhat concerned about Jenny’s summing up of what the sector has been saying to her. This should be much more than a consumer-driven necessity, and if the sector is looking at women only to sell more games, it will be missing out on the same thing that society is losing out on by not having women involved in every area of working life.
I was therefore very glad that Willie Rennie highlighted the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s 2012 paper, “Tapping all our Talents”. Of course, the RSE is dealing with sectors that are more mature than the games industry, but the industry could learn a lot from that report about women in the workplace who are qualified in STEM subjects. The report says:
“Women who ... remain in the STEM workforce are still segregated by occupation ... and grade ... . These forms of segregation significantly impact on both a woman’s ability to achieve her potential and her earning capacity. The number of women who advance to the most senior positions in STEM remains proportionately much smaller than that of their male counterparts.”
Our society has to examine what message we are sending out to women if in all areas of our working life women are not achieving equality.
As we know, some of the outcomes from such messages can be dangerous. It was only very recently that South Lanarkshire Council agreed to settle its equal pay claim for 3,000 individuals, many of whom were women. The failure to implement the Equal Pay Act 1970 led to women being denied a proper wage for the work that they had been undertaking; the situation had 20 years in the making, and the council now faces a £75 million bill as a result. I ask my colleagues to listen carefully to Malcolm Chisholm’s comment about gender equality being a human right. What message are we sending the young women of North Lanarkshire, where Labour has failed to settle its equal pay claims? We are telling mums and sisters—and indeed brothers, because men, too, are involved in these claims—that they are somehow of less worth in their own communities.
I urge everyone to tackle inequality in all areas of working life.
Before I move on, I remind members that they should use full names in their speeches. It is important for those who are watching our proceedings, and it is also an accessibility issue.
15:57
I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate, and I, too, support the calls for the greater participation of women in Scottish business.
First of all, though, I want to highlight what I believe to be a roadblock to the full inclusion of women and young people in entrepreneurial activities: the continuing cuts to further education courses. It is simply undeniable that the loss of 140,000 college places since 2007 is undermining efforts to upskill our future business leaders. Scotland needs to provide the training and skills that are essential to meet the economy’s long-term needs, and we cannot achieve that if we cut the funding to the courses that are most accessible to women.
If women were responsible for a higher proportion of the business start-ups in Scotland, the potential for economic growth would be staggering. According to research from Women’s Enterprise Scotland, only 21 per cent of Scotland’s 343,000 small to medium-sized enterprises are run by women, and it is thought that that gender imbalance could be costing our nation up to £13 billion every year.
A reversal of that trend would be transformational both for our economy and for gender equality in Scottish business, and it would significantly improve the lives of thousands of families across Scotland. In order to achieve that, however, women must have the opportunity to learn new skills and build their capacity, capabilities and confidence in flexible and welcoming environments.
The Scottish Government is making that task harder by closing off routes to learning for thousands of potential entrepreneurs, and the effect of that decision is reflected by the size of the gender gap in Scottish business start-up rates.
Last week, I used an oral question to ask the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism what specific measures the Scottish Government has taken to increase that gender gap. In response, the minister did not detail one specific measure that the Government has taken to encourage women to start their own businesses. As a consequence, I remain deeply concerned that we could be doing much more to capitalise on the entrepreneurial potential of Scotland’s women.
We should not make the mistake of presuming that Scotland’s women are less keen, less able or less enthusiastic about becoming self-employed. Recently, Women’s Enterprise Scotland published a report on the state of women-led businesses in Scotland, which highlighted that 87 per cent of women entrepreneurs want to grow and expand their businesses, and the report also identified specific areas where women need support to help them to achieve their aims.
Occupational segregation has been identified as a key roadblock to encouraging women as business leaders, and the report made specific recommendations to address that through changes such as the promotion of flexible working arrangements. In addition to that, I believe that we can best tackle gender segregation at its roots in the early years of education.
We need to challenge the enforcement of gender roles on young people in schools and other places of learning, and we should encourage women and men towards employment in non-traditional occupations. It is only through challenging the expectations that we have of men and women in our society—and by providing equality of opportunity—that women will be able to take their rightful place at the top table of Scottish business.
16:02
I am delighted to speak today in this debate, although I am not quite sure that I am qualified for the job. The Scottish Government’s motion talks about improving entrepreneurship among women and young people in Scotland and, like the Liberal Democrat, Willie Rennie, I am not young or a woman. However, it was a Liberal Democrat woman—Shirley Williams, or Baroness Williams of Crosby—who claimed that George W Bush said to a UK Prime Minister that the problem with the French is that they do not have a word for entrepreneur. I would say that the problem with the word “entrepreneur”—a French word—is that it is too often associated with men, and not always with men who are that young.
In the north-east, we know what an entrepreneur looks like. After all, Aberdeen is a powerhouse of the UK, as the present UK Prime Minister said. However, that culture of entrepreneurship was not born with the discovery of oil and gas in the North Sea. With the whisky industry, farming and fishing, generations of north-east entrepreneurs have contributed to the wealth of this nation through the creation of new and innovative businesses operating at home and abroad. Working in the fishing industry for more than 30 years, I met many of those entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, I would need only a few fingers of one hand to count the number of women heading seafood businesses whom I met across Scotland during all those years.
This afternoon, we have heard from a lot of members. Christina McKelvie gave a good example of entrepreneurship relating to crutches and, as I need some help in that regard, I might ask her to give me the details of that particular entrepreneur. However, as much as I would like to congratulate those who have celebrated women entrepreneurs, there is a real issue that we must tackle, and it is occupational segregation.
One of the most respected entrepreneurs in the north-east is Sir Ian Wood, a man who came from the fishing industry to successfully create one of the largest enterprises servicing the oil and gas sector in Scotland and around the world. He has the can-do attitude that the Scottish Government is promoting and, like the cabinet secretary, he wants underrepresented groups to be able to realise their potential as entrepreneurs. How wonderful it is that Sir Ian Wood published his commission’s report on Tuesday. The final report of the commission focuses on business and industry working with schools and colleges as a key factor in ensuring that young people are more prepared for work and better informed about career choices. That is extremely important for young girls and young boys. Like my colleague Dennis Robertson, I think that tackling occupational segregation as early as possible is the key to success.
The commission’s report also contains recommendations on encouraging and supporting more employers to recruit more young people, as well as a number of recommendations on advancing equalities in education and youth employment. Once again, the Scottish Government is working in partnership with the people who know best how to develop the potential that we have here in Scotland. We need the collective team Scotland approach that we have heard about this afternoon to bring companies, universities, public agencies and customers together to exploit more opportunities to drive growth and increase exports.
Let me illustrate where we are at here in Scotland and how that collaborative approach is working well. Last month, I had the pleasure of attending a skills summit in Aberdeen that was delivered by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and Skills Development Scotland in partnership with OPITO, which, as we have heard, is the oil and gas industry’s focal point for skills, learning and workforce development. Many issues were considered at the event, which launched Scottish apprenticeship week 2014, including employer engagement with schools. Apprenticeship is extremely important. In the north-east, we know that many young entrepreneurs started as apprentices at a young age.
I was very impressed by the speakers that the organisers had lined up and by the number of organisations that attended and participated in the discussions. I was particularly impressed by the first speaker, the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Training, Youth and Women’s Employment, Angela Constance. I was not the only one to be impressed.
Scotland’s newest cabinet secretary had to leave Aberdeen shortly after her speech, but I will illustrate how it was received. The chair of the Aston University Engineering Academy, Professor Alison Halstead, told the Scottish audience how impressed she was by the fact that a Government cabinet secretary was working in partnership with others to help young people and women to have their economic potential unleashed. Professor Halstead told us how different the way in which the UK Government works down south is. I am afraid that she blamed most of that on someone who came from Aberdeen, who is not an entrepreneur, but a politician—the UK Secretary of State for Education and the Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath, Michael Gove MP. We were warned by Professor Halstead that the Westminster Government has a real lack of understanding when it comes to educating young people to be ready for work in the 21st century. She told us that we were on the right path here in Scotland.
As several members have said and as Sir Ian Wood’s commission’s report concluded, we must understand that in many areas, such as advancing equalities in Scottish education and youth employment, there are no quick fixes. When it comes to occupational segregation, schools clearly have an influence at a crucial stage. Although the problem could never be resolved in its entirety solely by schools, as Dennis Robertson said, in its report on women and work, the Equal Opportunities Committee noted that it was industry’s view that sector representatives should be brought into schools to enhance careers advice by countering gender stereotypes. Subject choice at school is absolutely key to addressing gender segregation in the workplace.
That is why I would like the Government to go further than the recommendations of Sir Ian Wood’s commission and to open primary schools as well as secondary schools to business and industry representatives. In my view, it must be representatives who carry out that role, rather than individual businesses. As much as headteachers have opened the doors of their schools since the implementation of curriculum for excellence, teachers do not have the time to consider multiple requests every year. The collaborative approach must be co-ordinated.
I am sorry to say that Jenny Marra does not have a leg to stand on in what she has said and what her amendment says about college places.
Nothing should stand in the way of both genders taking equal advantage of opportunities that are available in modern Scotland. I trust the Government to deliver the shared vision for women and young people across Scotland.
16:10
I apologise to members and the cabinet secretary for missing the beginning of the debate. I must read my diary much better; I am sorry for being a couple of minutes late.
I thank the Government for initiating the debate, which is most welcome and is timely. Scotland is entering a historic period, so it is timely to talk about entrepreneurship among women and young people and about giving them such an opportunity. That is not a political point; I just point out the emphasis. It is great to speak about the subject.
As we all know, heavy industry has been in decline in various parts, and we need to look to other ways to engage people and particularly women and young children. I want to mention Ailsa McKay. I do not know whether she would have talked about entrepreneurship, but she certainly would have talked about women in the economy. She started excellent work, which others are continuing. I am sure that she would have loved this debate.
Like other members, I am a bit disappointed by the Labour amendment, although I am—unfortunately—not overly surprised by that. The head-count figures that Labour uses take no account of the length, intensity or economic relevance of courses. I thought that Jenny Marra would welcome what the Government has announced—the £13 million of funding to create an extra 3,500 college places.
The figure of 140,000 fewer college places is straight from the Scottish Government.
Again, that was a misleading contribution from Jenny Marra of the Labour Party. I take it that she thinks that if she says something often enough, people will believe it. I will come on to the issue later.
I thought that Jenny Marra might have welcomed the comments of John Henderson, who is Colleges Scotland’s chief executive. He said that the extra money that was put in to create extra places
“underlines the Scottish Government’s recognition of the vital role of colleges in contributing to the strengthening of the Scottish economy.”
Jenny Marra’s colleague Alex Rowley believes that the merger of colleges in Fife provided an opportunity for that area and a fresh way of looking at developing skills and training. I thought that she might have welcomed what the Government has done, but I am not surprised by her approach, as I have said.
A number of members have made good and interesting speeches. Murdo Fraser and Malcolm Chisholm mentioned the commission for developing Scotland’s young workforce, which Sir Ian Wood chaired. Its report is a substantial piece of work that gets to the nub of the issues that we have raised not only in today’s debate but in previous debates. Like Murdo Fraser and others, I look forward to debating the report further and to the implementation of the commission’s recommendations.
Dennis Robertson and Anne McTaggart were spot on when they mentioned education. The work does not start when people enter the workforce; it starts when they are educated. Education has a role to play in building women’s confidence and getting past the stereotyping of women—of how they dress and look and of their career choices—out there in what we might see as the big, bad world. We know that all forms of media have an impact on that. As Dennis Robertson and Anne McTaggart said, curriculum for excellence is relevant to ensuring that young girls and women build their confidence. We must all challenge the stereotyping of women.
The women in enterprise framework and the can do framework will improve entrepreneurship among women and young people—we must not forget that young people, too, are being targeted.
Kezia Dugdale’s contribution was very interesting and very much appreciated. She talked about role models, which are important. Every woman in the Parliament who is involved in politics goes out and speaks not only to members of their own parties but to young women, and they see us as role models.
Does the member agree that women in the women in renewable energy Scotland, or WIRES, forum are perfect examples of role models and ambassadors, who try to bring our young people into the renewable sector and show that there is a pathway to the new energy for Scotland, and that at least 20 per cent of the people who are involved in that profession are now women?
That is a very good example. When I go round schools, renewable energy is certainly one of the top issues that young people, including young women, talk about.
The point that I was trying to make was that young women look on women politicians as role models. Sometimes, we should all take a wee step back and think about how we behave not just in the Parliament, but in other places, as we are seen as role models for young women and what we put forward in the Parliament affects them. I ask women in the chamber and throughout the Parliament to sometimes sit back and have a wee reflection. We are not exactly great role models.
Speak for yourself.
I will come back to Christine Grahame; I am not mentioning her in that regard.
Mentoring and networking streams have been mentioned. Those are excellent ways to involve women, and I always encourage young women to get involved in them.
We have talked about entrepreneurs. Michelle Mone was mentioned, and Kezia Dugdale, Christine Grahame and Joan McAlpine, I think, mentioned local entrepreneurs in their areas. I will not talk about all the local entrepreneurs in my area, which would certainly take a while, but many young people, including young women, are local entrepreneurs. Kezia Dugdale was absolutely right. People such as Michelle Mone are basically entrepreneurs at a certain level, but all the local people—women and young people—who have local businesses are absolutely fantastic, and we must ensure that they are known to everyone and give them praise when they should be given it.
We have Skypark in our area. I will not give any names, but there are many young businesses in Glasgow, which all take heed—and I think also take encouragement—from one another. Local role models and local entrepreneurs are absolutely great.
16:17
Last year, the Equal Opportunities Committee produced a report on women and work, which was widely welcomed across the chamber. Occupational segregation, flexible working and childcare were among the issues that the committee looked at during the inquiry, and its recommendations are now a matter of record. The committee did all that work against the backdrop of the slowest economic recovery in 100 years and a prolonged crisis in which women have been hit hardest.
Excuse me, Ms McCulloch. If members wish to chat, perhaps they could do so outside the chamber.
Women’s unemployment outstrips men’s unemployment, and the growing prevalence of underemployment is more likely to affect women.
I pay tribute to the work of all members who served on the Equal Opportunities Committee at that time. They gave us a comprehensive report that we need to keep coming back to, and many of the findings in it are relevant to this debate.
Although we have seen huge progress over the decades, the reality of life for women in Scotland is that, far too often, we are still swimming against the tide. Assumptions about gender roles can influence a woman’s chances in life; occupational segregation persists in work and training; flexibility in work still does not serve women as well as it serves others; and there is still simply not enough childcare when and where it is needed.
Many of those inequalities and inconsistencies are reflected in the gender gap that we can see in the world of business. In the action plan that we are discussing, Professor Sara Carter points out that men are twice as likely to start a business as women are. In addition, the levels of women’s ownership in business in Scotland are low compared with even those in other high-income countries. Perhaps if there was a fairer distribution of that high income, we would not be quite so far behind our neighbours.
I want to focus my remarks on the practical steps that Government, industry and their partner organisations can take to help women into work and to promote women in business. As a woman who set up my own business, I want to identify the action points that I feel are the most significant and that warrant further discussion.
The Labour amendment stresses the importance of education. We have explained in depth why we believe that college cuts are short sighted and why course changes have adversely affected women. As discussed, there is also a growing consensus around the need to bring more women into so-called non-traditional roles, the STEM subjects and modern apprenticeships. To that end, I welcome the recent progress that we have seen with the careerwise initiative, industry placements and the much-needed SDS equality action plan.
However, the cabinet secretary will know that this year saw the introduction of new contribution rates in the modern apprenticeship programme and that, in certain occupational areas, after 10 years of rates being frozen, we are now seeing reductions. My concern is not only that some of those occupational areas are important to the Scottish economy but that some training providers will no longer be able to cover their costs. What impact could that have on apprenticeships and on women in training?
The action plan calls for engagement with a number of organisations, including the Prince’s Trust, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the business gateway, to develop mentoring and networking for women. I fully support those efforts and the role model project. The action plan calls for gender-specific support, which is right, because gender-neutral policy sometimes reinforces pre-existing inequalities rather than addressing them. The action plan calls for collaboration with Co-operative Development Scotland to raise awareness of the consortium co-operative model, which I have spoken in support of before, as it could help entrepreneurs to compete for public contracts.
The inequalities that women face are a waste of talent and potential that costs our economy £7 billion. It is immoral and illogical to sustain those inequalities so, together, let us close the gap.
16:22
Scotland’s economy depends on a number of key sectors, including oil and gas, food and drink, financial services, life sciences and creative industries, but it also depends on small businesses to deliver economic growth not only in those important areas of our economy but in every business sector. There are just short of 350,000 small businesses in Scotland, and they provide more than 1 million jobs, which is half of all private sector employment in Scotland. To continue to grow our economy, we need to encourage the creation of new businesses and the expansion of existing businesses. We need to encourage businesses, where possible, to export and sell online.
The people of Scotland are this country’s greatest asset. We have a highly educated population, with 39 per cent of our working adults having an HND, a degree or a professional qualification compared to 35 per cent in the UK as a whole. Here in Edinburgh, the proportion is even higher, at 54 per cent of the adult population.
We need to encourage, nurture and support budding entrepreneurs. The global entrepreneurship monitor reports, which are published by the University of Strathclyde business school, measure how well we perform in that area. Regarding start-ups, the most recent report compares Scotland’s total early-stage entrepreneurial activity—TEA—with that in 26 innovation-driven sovereign nations. The study found that Scotland has significantly higher rates of developing or new business-owner enterprises across the working population than Italy and Japan. Scotland’s TEA rate, at 6.8 per cent, is on a par with that of other European countries such as France, Germany and Norway. However, the rate differed between males and females, with the male TEA rate in Scotland being 8.5 per cent compared to 8.7 per cent for the UK and female start-up rates being 5.2 per cent in Scotland compared to 5.8 per cent across the UK.
The GEM report suggests that the motivation of women entrepreneurs in starting a business varies widely and can include factors such as career constraints, work-family balance and financial freedom. The report also found that significant wealth creation tended to be of secondary importance for most, but not all, women entrepreneurs. As a result, many of the new businesses are in personal services and retailing, where relatively low start-up capital is required.
By encouraging and supporting women to start new businesses to the same level as male start-ups, grow existing businesses, and—where possible—start to export, we would generate more than £7 billion for the economy. The Hunter centre for entrepreneurship estimates that that would create about 35,000 direct jobs.
Women’s Enterprise Scotland carried out a survey of women-owned businesses in Scotland. The survey found that access to finance was the most frequently mentioned need, with only 50 per cent of women finding their banks helpful. Business support was identified as another area where assistance was required, not only at the early stages of developing a business but later, when businesses are at the point of wishing to grow. Those women who had access to a mentor found that the vast majority of mentors proved to be very helpful in providing advice.
The business gateway was identified as a main source of business support, helping about 10,000 start-ups every year, with two thirds of businesses started by women finding its services helpful. The Women’s Enterprise Scotland survey also found that women recognised that, despite the challenges, they should consider growing their businesses and, among its key findings, the survey highlighted that 87 per cent of women-owned businesses aim to grow, with 27 per cent aiming to grow rapidly.
We also need to encourage more entrepreneurship among young people. Entrepreneurship should be recognised as a valid, viable and rewarding career choice for all young people. The self-employed rate for 16 to 24-year-olds is currently a disappointing 2 per cent. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s “Policy Brief on Youth Entrepreneurship” highlights the barriers that the young face, which prevent some of them from turning ideas into projects. It states that they
“arise in the areas of social attitudes, lack of skills, inadequate entrepreneurship education, lack of work experience, under capitalisation, lack of networks, and market barriers.”
That applies across Europe, not just in Scotland or the UK.
We need to address those issues. The curriculum for excellence is doing that, by ensuring that enterprise education is embedded in young people’s learning. In addition, good schemes are encouraging young people to consider starting a business, some of which are described in “Scotland CAN DO”, which sets out a vision of Scotland as a world-leading entrepreneurial and innovative nation.
One such scheme, Micro-Tyco, is a groundbreaking enterprise challenge. The WildHearts Foundation runs the scheme, which has had more than 10,000 participants, from schoolchildren to business executives. The vision is to ignite the spirit of enterprise in our culture. Micro-Tyco challenges teams to take inspiration from the WildHearts Foundation’s microfinance clients in the developing world and grow £1 into as much money as possible, in just four weeks. The scheme’s unique combination of inspiration, business mentorship, positive peer pressure and ethics produces incredible results. More than £500,000 has been returned from just 1,900 loans of £1.
Another scheme is the young innovators challenge, which was won by a young female graduate of the Edinburgh College of Art. The competition aims to encourage young people in college or university to come up with innovative ideas. It is funded by the Scottish Government and run by the Scottish Institute for Enterprise. In 2013, competition entrants were asked to come up with innovative solutions to challenges that industry leaders had set. Finalists pitched their ideas to a panel of business experts, for a chance to win development funding of up to £50,000 and business support.
“Scotland CAN DO” highlights what we can do to support more young people, including females, to become entrepreneurs. A yes vote will release the energy and confidence that is needed if people are to take up the challenge.
16:29
This debate has been very interesting. If nothing else, we have learned how to mend a doorbell thanks to Joan McAlpine’s step-by-step instructions.
Establishing a new business or harnessing an old one and developing it with new opportunities is a huge challenge for anybody. Those people who have the ideas and special skills that they believe will bring substantial dividends—and not just financial ones—are precious assets in any economy, not least because they are willing to take on the accompanying risk. As several members have reminded us, the scale of the venture can vary enormously and it can involve a different mix of leadership, initiative and innovation, as well as the usually considerable need for good financial backing. There is also the long-standing debate about whether entrepreneurship is innate or whether it can be taught.
Christian Allard mentioned the French connection, as I would expect him to do. The term goes back to the 1730s, but it was not until the 1950s that the economist Joseph Schumpeter examined entrepreneurship in detail, especially the factors that give rise to what he described as
“the gale of creative destruction”
whereby something new and better emerges out of the process of industrial mutation. I like that concept, and I raise it because there is an analogy with Sir Ian Wood’s deliberations, which were published earlier in the week. Sir Ian, a hugely successful entrepreneur, has, via his own leadership, sought to take the initiative and innovate when it comes to the structure of Scottish education. Like Tom Hunter and Jim McColl, he knows only too well that if Scotland is to lead the world at entrepreneurship, it must do much more to inspire women and young people.
If women now account for a third of global entrepreneurs and there are encouraging signs about the rise in female self-employment, we also know that women often feel constrained. Perhaps it is an issue of confidence, as Jenny Marra said. Sometime they feel constrained by economic difficulties, sometimes by family commitments, and sometimes by attitudes. Christine Grahame was very good at outlining some of her constituents’ issues in that respect.
Women’s economic profile is often different, as Murdo Fraser said, and it should be acknowledged as such as it has important implications for policy making. It requires diversity in skills and training and, again, that is a theme that, from our perspective, is one of the most important in the Wood report—dismantling the structural straitjacket when it comes to responding to the needs of a wide diversity of pupils and fostering their ambition. The report sets out a vision that is based on the successful application of what works best in practice, which is always a good guide for successful entrepreneurship. It recognises that providing the best opportunity for everyone does not depend on putting them all through the same educational experience.
The report also recognises that addressing the attainment gap is essential if we are to enhance that educational experience. Spreading the practice of good entrepreneurship will be held back if we cannot do something about that attainment gap. It is simply unacceptable that one in six senior pupils is still leaving school without being functionally literate, that almost half of young people in Scotland are leaving school without higher qualifications, that only one in four Scottish businesses is willing to hire people directly from education below the higher level, and that 16 to 24-year-olds now form almost 20 per cent of the total unemployed. Good changes are happening, but those are stark statistics that undoubtedly hold back the desire for better entrepreneurship.
However, as three members said, there must be an accompanying change in attitudes and there are lessons to be learned from abroad, especially from some of our key European neighbours where there is an absence of the unfortunate tiered structures that label young people and that tend to restrict social mobility and where there is greater flexibility of movement between school, college and university. There is a strong need for the collective responsibility that Willie Rennie spoke about during his contribution.
For far too long, Scottish education has been undermined by quite powerful gender stereotypes that have reflected deeply entrenched cultural and socioeconomic preconceptions, and which have had a detrimental effect on the Scottish economy. For instance, let us take the extremely troubling statistic that in 2012-13, just 3 per cent of new modern apprenticeship starts in engineering were undertaken by women, or the fact that females are far more likely to undertake a level 2 apprenticeship than males.
Clare Adamson referred to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Professor Dame Jocelyn Burnell is the new, and also the first female, head of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. She is one of 36 female physics professors in the UK. She made the comment that we can convert the teachers and the kids, but if the kids go home and say that they want to be a physicist and their parents question why on earth they would want to do that, that obviously makes life very difficult.
To the commission’s credit, I think that it was extremely alive to exactly that problem, which explains why it has advocated that schools monitor the gender split, with particular reference to the STEM subjects, and engage with employers, so that real-life experience is articulated to all students regardless of gender. Margaret McCulloch made a strong point about her own experience in that regard. Of course, schools are only part of the equation and it is therefore entirely appropriate that the Scottish funding council and Skills Development Scotland are also tasked with promoting the merits of STEM subjects to both girls and boys.
On that point, the retention rate for young female graduates in STEM subjects is truly shocking—the statistics were given to us by Willie Rennie—and is a major area of concern. What makes it a little more troubling is that, despite the fact that it is highly probable that the next batch of successful Scottish entrepreneurs will be involved in life sciences and IT, the new qualifications perhaps do not reflect that as strongly as they should. I instance the debate around higher geology as a classic example of the debate in that regard.
This is a hugely important area of development. It requires changing attitudes, just as much as policy work. We have great pleasure in supporting the Government’s motion, the Labour amendment and, obviously, the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser.
16:36
This has been an enjoyable, interesting and wide-ranging debate, which has covered a number of different topics but concentrated mainly on women in business and women’s access to training and skills.
We have heard some great local stories about women’s success in business, especially from Christine Grahame, from her experience in the Borders, and from Joan McAlpine, whose region is South Scotland. I was particularly taken by the cabinet secretary’s love of Joan McAlpine’s friend’s business. I am quite tempted to look it up myself.
It is always good to hear stories about women setting up successful businesses in their communities. I know that all members around the chamber have their own stories; there are certainly many from my region, too.
As I listened to members’ stories, I was reflecting on what came behind those stories, what led those women to that point and what challenges they faced as they set up their businesses. I was really struck by the focus in the “Women in Enterprise” report on access to finance. I hear from so many local businesses—as I am sure that all members in the chamber do—about the difficulty that emerging companies face in accessing traditional methods of loans and finance from banks. When we speak to the banks, they say, “It is a perception issue; we are engaging at a local level.” There is still a gap in the middle that we need to bridge.
As I listened to members’ speeches, I was reminded of a story from my own region. A microfinancing project has been set up in Dundee to help women set up their own business when they find it difficult to access traditional finance from banks. I was particularly struck by that story, because, in my head, microfinancing is something that is very much connected with the developing economies in the world. Where profit-driven financing is very difficult to come by, some charitable and self-sustaining microfinancing projects step in. I have to say that I was surprised but perhaps encouraged that those projects are taking place in our economy.
I wonder whether, in her conversations with banks, the cabinet secretary would be open to expanding that remit and discussing with the microfinancing projects that are working in Scotland the challenges that they face in getting finance to women to start their own enterprises. Perhaps she would discuss whether all financing options are meeting the needs of female entrepreneurs, do what she can to improve the financing situation and report back to Parliament on those conversations.
I turn to other points that were raised in the debate. In her intervention on Malcolm Chisholm, the cabinet secretary suggested that I was asking her to choose between college places for young people and college places for women. The Scottish Government has already made that choice. I believe, as does Labour, that our economy is underpinned by training and skills for young people and women returners in our colleges. It says so in the Wood report this week, which the Scottish Government has rightly accepted.
We are not suggesting that there is a choice between college places for women returners and college places for young people. It is the Scottish Government that has made that choice. We think that further education is a key priority and that places both for young people and for women returners should be fully supported. The Scottish Government gave higher education a much more generous settlement than further education, but that was its choice. That is the responsibility of Government.
Malcolm Chisholm said in his eloquent—as always—contribution that there is a fundamental economic case for gender equality. With all due respect, I think that Clare Adamson misunderstood my point on the economic imperative behind gender equality. I did not think that I had to labour, with the chamber, my and Labour’s commitment to gender equality for human rights reasons and reasons of general wellbeing. For the record, we believe that gender equality enhances all of those, but we wanted this afternoon to highlight the economic imperative of women’s participation and unexploited markets.
Clare Adamson also said that colleges are now in a better position to support women returners. I fundamentally disagree with that. I would say to her, with all respect, that the Scottish National Party is ignoring the figures from its own Government. There are 93,000 fewer women studying part-time since 2007—since this Government took power. That figure is from the Scottish funding council, the Government’s own agency. I do not think that we are really in a position, in this chamber, to ignore or dispute those figures.
As I said in my speech, Audit Scotland said that guidance to colleges was that they should
“reduce the number of courses that did not lead to a recognised qualification or that lasted less than ten hours.”
Can the member say which courses that do not lead to a recognised qualification or that last less than 10 hours help women into employment?
I absolutely can. Non-recognisable qualifications in colleges are often access and refresher courses, which women use to get back into education. If the cabinet secretary will not make those a priority and count them, whatever the advice from Audit Scotland, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how women in Scotland access further education and make their way into training, skills and then employment. I hope that the cabinet secretary can reflect on that. We should definitely count those courses.
It is right that the Wood commission has been mentioned this afternoon. However, Sir Ian Wood spent considerable time and care over the report, and I reiterate my request to the cabinet secretary that we have a full and proper debate before the summer recess.
The Conservative amendment and the Conservative speakers rightly raised a number of points. When Johann Lamont and I met Sir Ian last week, he stressed engagement of the private sector in schools. Businesses should be going into schools more often to make their case and raise aspiration among young people.
Murdo Fraser highlighted the inadequacy of one week’s work experience. I completely and utterly agree. I have work experience students from Dundee in my office at the moment, and I know my and colleagues’ experience. It is important for young people to get a flavour of different types of work in the public sector, the private sector and different kinds of businesses, especially for those young people who do not have the connections through their parents, families or family networks to get such experience.
Ian Wood suggested perhaps three or four weeks’ work experience over the years. The Parliament should take that seriously and address it.
I am not necessarily giving my opinion, but I found it interesting that East Dunbartonshire youth council campaigned strongly to keep the one-week work experience when East Dunbartonshire Council did away with it. We need to listen to young folk as well as everyone else on that.
Absolutely. Work experience needs to be enhanced. The youth council was right to campaign to keep it, but there needs to be more than one week, it needs to be funded and it needs to be structured.
Ian Wood is also keen to address gender segregation in the workplace. That has also been raised this afternoon.
Murdo Fraser made an important point about learning from Germany and the focus on STEM subjects, which is key. Willie Rennie picked up on that as well and talked about how the rate of loss of women in the move from higher education in STEM subjects into employment is double that of men. We need to address that seriously. More needs to be done to ensure that talent is retained in our workforce.
Willie Rennie also stressed the importance of college places and refresher courses underpinning entrepreneurship and the Wood commission’s proposals.
My colleague Kezia Dugdale made an important intervention, as she always does, about work readiness, and she made a critical point about readiness to set up one’s own business. She talked about colleges examining tax, risk and marketing across different courses so that, when students leave college, they are willing not only to apply for jobs but to access finance themselves and set up their own businesses for their own employment and to create jobs in the wider economy.
We are greatly concerned about the low rates of participation by women in entrepreneurship. Women’s enterprise is difficult accurately to define and enumerate, but we know that it is estimated that, in 2012, only about 21 per cent of Scotland’s thousands of SMEs were majority led by women. That figure must concern us.
The reports that we discussed today are welcome. They emanate from the women’s employment summit. I would welcome us coming back to the topic in six or nine months’ time to find out whether the initiatives in the reports are working and to take stock of progress.
16:47
The debate has largely been positive and, at times, humorous. Nonetheless, it has been constructive and informative for moving forward.
If we are really going to reignite the spirit of entrepreneurship for which Scotland has been renowned, we need to do so with women and young people playing a full and active part. The reality is that we cannot successfully reignite that spirit without them. As people are our greatest assets, we need to tap into all our talents.
A strong and growing network of support is becoming increasingly focused on the needs of women and young people. Women’s Enterprise Scotland is leading the implementation group to ensure that the aspirations that we all share are translated into action and that we are actively tackling the gender gap in enterprise.
The “Women in Enterprise” framework and action plan arose from work that Professor Sara Carter led in collaboration after the women’s employment summit. The point about collaboration is important: all the key public, private and third sector partners are signed up to the framework and action plan. That includes the Royal Bank of Scotland, business gateway, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Prince’s Trust. Jackie Brierton MBE, who is the chairperson of Women’s Enterprise Scotland, said:
“We are the only country in Europe that has got this kind of collaborative policy framework ... we can now go forward and actually create an environment that is more supportive.”
Members have acknowledged throughout the debate that enterprise and entrepreneurship are now a distinct outcome in curriculum for excellence. Self-employment can be a route out of unemployment for young people, but it must be seen as a positive career choice in its own right. We must view enterprise and innovation as important in everyday life and work. In that respect, I was delighted to see that four aircraft maintenance apprentices from Prestwick airport were recently among the winners of the young innovators challenge; they are the first apprentices to win that accolade.
I draw to members’ attention the fact that the very successful bridge 2 business initiative that has been piloted in City of Glasgow College—which I mentioned in my opening remarks—will be rolled out across the college estate. Six colleges are already interested in running the scheme.
Given the breadth of the work that is going on across the public, private and third sectors, it is imperative for our young people and women who are making their way in the world of business; for those who want to make their way in the world of enterprise and entrepreneurship; and for organisations such as the Association of Scottish Businesswomen and Women’s Enterprise Scotland, that we debate these issues in Scotland’s Parliament. All those stakeholders deserve a debate that is very focused on enterprise and entrepreneurship.
For that reason, I thank the members who focused specifically on that theme. I recognise that the debate highlights far broader synergies with the economic experience of women in the wider world, and with the Wood report, which I will come to later. However, it has been excellent to hear those great examples of innovative women who are making their way in the economy and in the business world the length and breadth of Scotland.
Christine Grahame mentioned Lynn Mann from Supernature Oils, who I have had the pleasure of meeting. Lynn is a role model and mentor and is leading the way and supporting others to follow in her footsteps. Christina McKelvie spoke about inventions with social purpose and Joan McAlpine made the important point that, as well as getting more women to be active in the areas of the economy in which they are currently underrepresented, such as engineering, we need to value the work that women want to do and the businesses that women are attracted to establishing. I very much look forward to receiving an invitation to meet with Joan McAlpine’s constituent who designs fabulous shoes—I am, of course, a great supporter of the creative industries.
Joan McAlpine and Murdo Fraser made the more serious point that women have a tendency to start up different types of businesses. Murdo Fraser also said that women’s start-ups tend to be self-funded, which raises the question of access to finance. I am happy to report back, as Jenny Marra and Malcolm Chisholm requested, in the appropriate format, whether that is to the Parliament or to the members individually, on the broader discussions about supporting women to access finance to make their business aspirations a reality.
It is important to recognise, as Murdo Fraser mentioned, that the motivation for some women to establish their own business is not simply just to make money. However, 87 per cent of those female-led businesses are seeking to grow; we should never underestimate women’s ambition in seeking to make their own way in the world.
I very much enjoyed Kezia Dugdale’s contribution to the debate. She largely focused on a different type of economy and the imperative need to support home-grown businesses. I draw her attention to the point that values-based businesses are emphasised in the Scotland can do programme, that alternative models such as the co-op model that Margaret McCulloch mentioned, employee ownership and social enterprises are discussed, celebrated and supported, and that an important point is made about growth for the strength of all. I pay tribute to the work that Women’s Enterprise Scotland is doing in terms of leading the way on role models and mentoring support. That is a good example of action that is taking place here and now.
Willie Rennie spoke very eloquently about the leaky pipeline with regard to the proportion of women science graduates who do not pursue, or drop out from, STEM careers and how that costs the economy £170 million. I very much hope that the Liberal Democrats use their debate time at some point in the future to bring back the amendment that they were unsuccessful in getting selected for today’s debate. I hope that Willie Rennie is reassured that this Government works very closely with organisations such as Equate Scotland. Indeed, we fund such organisations, which are crucial for the implementation of the careerwise initiative, which is in essence about early intervention, role models and work experience for young girls so that they can experience what it is like to pursue a STEM-related career.
I have absolutely no doubt that we will indeed return to the issue of occupational segregation, because it is an agenda that I am utterly committed to. As a former social worker, I will always value the work to which women are traditionally attracted, but there is no doubt that we need to improve women’s representation in careers related to science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We are not alone in having that problem, because it is faced across Europe. However, there is an opportunity for Scotland to be an exemplar and lead the way in this area.
Members quite rightly spoke highly of the recent and timeous Wood commission report. I very much welcome the cross-party support for and interest in the commission for developing Scotland’s young workforce. I reiterate that this Government very much views the report as a landmark one that has the capacity to transform the career prospects of young women and men in this country. As I said in my opening remarks, I will return to the Parliament on 17 June to focus on the implementation of the Wood commission’s recommendations. With our partners in local government and COSLA, we will have to work through all 39 recommendations and see how they can be implemented and resourced.
I am cherishing the opportunity to do that because when we established the commission we on the Government benches were very struck that the countries with the lowest levels of youth unemployment were also the countries with very well-established vocational, educational and training systems that were highly regarded by employers. Our ambition is indeed far greater than returning to pre-recession levels of youth unemployment. We have to be doing far better by our young women and men in times of both economic growth and economic challenge. I am always struck by the fact that, prior to the world turning upside down in 2008 with the economic downturn, in this country youth unemployment peaked at 14 per cent at a time of economic growth. That indicates strongly to me that not only do we have an economic problem to reverse, but that we have systemic issues to address through every stage of our society if we are going to ensure that all our young people get the very best start to their working lives.
I am very pleased to report that early progress is being made on the Wood agenda. A few months ago an announcement was made with regard to Levenmouth in Fife, and Ayrshire College and North Ayrshire College announced yesterday some very interesting work. In addition, there is a head of steam for making good progress with the early pathfinder project.
The Government has also announced the expansion of the modern apprenticeship scheme from 25,000 starts a year up to 30,000 starts a year, fuelled by a growth in STEM subjects.
We have touched on issues in and around the college sector, but it is important to recognise that the Wood report described the college sector as “re-energised” and “well placed” to take forward that agenda.
I will end with a quote from Sir Ian Wood. He says:
“Our Commission sat at an opportune time to look at significantly enhancing Scotland’s approach to vocational education and youth employment. The reforms which have already taken place in schools and colleges as well as the growth in the number of Modern Apprenticeships provide a strong platform for change.”
I hope that we can all move forward in that vein.