Chamber and committees

I sense that you are laughing. I apologise if that was an unfair question but we will follow it up with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy. My understanding is that the UK Treasury says that the health and social care levy is included in Barnett consequentials but we do not have a sense of the exact amount. Is that correct and is it the assumption that you make?

I congratulate the cabinet secretary on making such an outstanding budget statement, given the severe challenges that have been created by the, to be frank, incompetent UK Government.

The cabinet secretary has rightly put economic recovery at the heart of her budget. As she is the first female to hold her post, I want to ask her about issues that are of concern to many women in business. What can be done to ensure that there is a more granular understanding across government of the economic impact on women of Covid, Brexit and so on? What can be done to ensure that women are not discriminated against in seeking business funding for start-up companies?

An issue has been escalated to me in my capacity as the convener of the cross-party group on music. The Scottish commercial music industry task force wrote recently to the UK Government to highlight its concern that only £9 million of £40 million that was committed to in Barnett consequentials for culture has been given to the Scottish Government. The minister has referred to that. What discussions has she had with the UK Government about that very concerning situation?

In 1946, two years before the United Nations declaration of human rights was adopted, Eleanor Roosevelt became chairperson of the UN Commission on Human Rights and went on to become the author of the UN declaration. It is remarkable but singularly appropriate that a woman led one of the most important international declarations ever made. In her speech of 1948 in Paris, she said that

“Basic human rights are simple and easily understood: freedom of speech and a free press; freedom of religion and worship; freedom of assembly and the right of petition”

and freedom

“from arbitrary arrest and punishment.”

The words are simple and clear but, regrettably, they remain unfulfilled in many and perhaps most corners of our world, 73 years later. Why, for example, is there still arbitrary imprisonment of the likes of Aung San Suu Kyi, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Zhang Zhan? Why do we still have to struggle to enshrine the most basic of rights? I think that the answer lies in the words of Elie Wiesel, who is a Holocaust survivor of Auschwitz and Buchenwald concentration camps. It is a problem of profound indifference. Back in 1999, he said:

“The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees—not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity, we betray our own.”

As members may know, I am concerned about the indifference that is shown by some towards the hard-won rights of women. Rights that have always merited some attention but do not compromise the rights of others are coming under increasing threat. Too often, we are all guilty of that; we pursue the rights of those with whom we sympathise but in such a way that we deny or compromise the equally important rights of others. That is not the path to universal human rights. Freedom that is gained by denying freedom to others is no freedom at all and the antithesis of human rights.

Nelson Mandela was one of the most remarkable men to understand the tyranny of seeking to gain power in order to deny the rights of others. His words at his trial in 1964 are as relevant today as they were then:

“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities.”

It is not enough to celebrate human rights day—we need to stop our indifference to the suffering of others, and we need to aspire to be remembered as Eleanor Roosevelt was remembered by Adlai Stevenson:

“She would rather light candles than curse the darkness.”

There is a lot of food for thought in all that.

You are talking about patient capital.

I want to touch on an area that I am amazed has not come up so far—funding and financing. You have given a very articulate description of where you are, but I want to explore a wee bit more how the constraints on resources are affecting your margins, in terms of both your individual businesses and the sector in which you operate, given that many small businesses are already highly debt laden, whether through the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, the bounce back loan scheme or whatever.

I will also ask about the financing of innovation. Often, SMEs drive innovation, but innovation is perceived to be inherently more risky because it does not have a long-term record. What are your thoughts about how that is financed? I am thinking about all types of finance—not just public sector finance.

What is the general sense of where we are? There are a number of questions. Where are we now? What will we see coming through with small businesses? How many have you seen going to the wall? What about innovation in the sector and financing for that?

I saw Bill Ireland look at me, so he might as well go first.

Is the fundraising from private equity?

Does that apply to banks, as well?

Gordon—I will come back to my original question, which was about funding operations and your general sense of where businesses are with financing. I also asked about innovation in the sector.