Chamber and committees

I note that information is both being gathered and emerging in stages, but what is important is that any scheme is sufficiently robust to give confidence to food producers. Will the conditionality measures that are proposed allow for that confidence to be maintained?

Sorry, Presiding Officer—just give me a minute to fix my microphone.

I am getting a tut-tut there, I see.

The Scottish Government, and the acting finance secretary in particular, have faced huge challenges with this budget and have acted in the interests of the majority of the Scottish people. The balance that needs to be struck is very difficult to achieve, and I fully support the Budget (Scotland) (No 2) Bill. Given the context of high inflation, a lack of borrowing powers and a decades-long failure by successive UK Governments to address issues of economic growth, the acting finance secretary has done a remarkable job in constructing a budget that protects Scotland from some of the worst potential effects of a decline in the UK.

I take the opportunity now to address a regular theme of mine that is not directly relevant to today’s budget but concerns the wider picture. That is the need to do much more to support women’s entrepreneurship to drive economic growth and social equality. In both the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Economy and Fair Work Committee, I have regularly called for better data collection and analysis, and for a recognition of the many cultural barriers to participation. We need to remove all the barriers to women’s entrepreneurship, so I was delighted to see the publication yesterday of the report by Ana Stewart and Mark Logan, “Pathways: A New Approach for Women in Entrepreneurship”. It is an excellent report.

I also congratulate Kate Forbes, whose initiative it was as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, on her appointment of Ana Stewart to lead the inquiry. In my opinion, the report’s 31 recommendations all deserve support. Some of the historical barriers for women—which I have experienced, such as the misogynistic belief that having a young family should constrain the ambitions of women but not men—are directly addressed, along with calls for various education initiatives.

I note that the recommendations cross different portfolio areas and will require significant responses from a wide range of institutions, including Scottish Enterprise, councils, primary schools and universities. What is proposed is welcome, but the institutional challenge will be real and must be faced. The incoming First Minister—or, indeed, the acting finance minister—will therefore need to ensure appropriate ministerial oversight of the report’s implementation. My key point is that the success of creating more women entrepreneurs will undoubtedly help our economic growth and therefore will help to sustain Government finances, but it will need the whole-hearted support of all branches of Government to implement and monitor the recommendations.

The challenges of continuing to encourage young women to go into science, technology, engineering and mathematics and to stay there came out in that debate. They remain fairly acute, and we must continue to focus on them.

If the Stewart report is a cause for cautious optimism, we know that the state of the UK economy is not. We have heard it quoted previously that the UK is expected to be the worst-performing state economically among the G7 and G20 countries—worse than even sanctions-hit Russia. UK economic growth has lagged behind the average for large and small advanced economies over the past four decades, with the small advanced economies experiencing cumulative economic growth that was double that of the UK between 1999 and 2019. Those are all facts that cannot be chased away. Measured by gross domestic product per head, the gap between the small economy average and the UK had grown to more than £12,700 per person by 2019.

For the record, I point out that fiscal powers for achieving such economic growth reside squarely with the UK Government. In this context, the efforts of the acting finance secretary should be applauded. I have spoken previously about the multiple ways in which the devolution settlement ties his hands. I thank Ms Smith for taking my intervention on restrictions on borrowing powers, which we discussed earlier. I agree that the terms of reference for the fiscal framework might look at that again, but, if members do not mind my saying so, it has taken a very long time. Frankly, I do not think that the Scottish Tories need to be told what to think by the London Tories in calling for increased targeted capital revenue-raising powers.

At the same time, we must acknowledge that the UK Government is hellbent on furthering legislation that is a direct threat to our limited economic powers. We need full fiscal freedom to act in Scotland’s interest. This is about growth, job creation and wealth creation, and it is utterly vital.

My final point concerns Brexit, which we have hardly mentioned today. We must abandon the little England mentality in favour of re-engaging fully with Europe and the wider world. Every day, Brexit damages the lives of Scots, putting barriers in the way of trade with Europe and destroying supply chains. It is damaging our prospects for economic growth and, in a multitude of ways, it places an added burden on Scotland’s finances. Scotland needs full borrowing powers, a complete range of fiscal powers and a reinvigorated international outlook. I think that we could call that independence.

This is a theme that I have often asked questions on. In terms of additional—what I would regard as proper—capital borrowing powers, is Liz Smith willing to support my call for those, because we all agree that infrastructure projects are fundamental to growth in the economy?

I thank the minister for that response. In respect of CANZ, the environmental organisation UK100 has said that

“wider progress is being hampered by the government’s lack of a coherent national strategy, disjointed short-term funding and a refusal to recognise the importance of CANZ.”

It is my view that the CANZ approach aligns with much of what we are seeking to do in Scotland, but recent exchanges with Westminster demonstrate that that is not a view that the Tories share. Does the minister therefore share my concern that that is, regrettably, another example of where the UK Government’s obstinacy regarding net zero might hold Scotland back?

I have a question relating to an earlier point. Does the member agree that if we are to facilitate the engagement of more science, maths and technology specialists as speakers in schools, one possible initiative would be to support the creation of national or regional lists of speakers on the subject of women in STEM from among those who are willing to evangelise and to help to bring other girls and women into their professions?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is, regarding any impact in Scotland, to the new report by UK100, which highlights the benefits of clean air and net zero approaches. (S6O-01889)

I hear what the minister is saying about the encouragement of girls, even in primary school. However, to my mind, that could start earlier, by creating specialist teaching materials for nurseries, geared specifically towards girls’ engagement in science. Is that something that he might agree with?

I will continue on data, which we have started to discuss. I would like to understand a bit more about your specific plans. I fully accept that there is complexity in the types of disability that you are talking about. We have some data, but data is at the heart of getting an accurate picture. Could you give me a flavour of what is happening? You have said that you are looking at that, but what exactly are you looking at? By what dates do you plan to reach conclusions, recommend new data collectors and so on? Do you have any further information about that?

You are simply highlighting what I believe, which is that the situation is complex. It would be useful for the committee, and certainly for me, to understand a bit more deeply what you are planning. It becomes complex when we start to think about cross-cutting issues, and we know that there are various data sources.

Leading on from that, I note that a number of programmes are in place and we want to measure their success through various data collectors, of which we have some. We could, for example, introduce conditionality for grants and so on. It would be useful to understand more about that.

You mentioned culture, which is a fair point. That is linked to self-identification, about which people may, for very good reasons, be reluctant. As part of those plans, do you have anything else that looks at how you might support businesses to develop a culture of awareness and a culture of data collectors that you would potentially be able to support? That would be conditional on whether they were getting grants. That is another question about depth.