Chamber and committees

Good morning. Thank you for joining us, secretary of state. It is very much appreciated.

In your opening remarks, you correctly referenced the wider macroeconomic situation, which is, indeed, extremely challenging. I concede that you have inherited a very difficult position, but, arguably, some of the moves so far have made the macroeconomic picture even more complex and difficult, including the tax on jobs through the increase in employer national insurance contributions, and have the potential to lead to stagflation.

The chancellor is looking carefully at where further cuts might need to be made, What guarantees can you give on the UK Government’s commitment to multiyear funding? In other words, do you see that changing as a result of the macroeconomic challenges ahead?

I am talking about the city and regional deals.

Okay. In that case—I am not asking for a further response—should funding be withdrawn by the UK Government at a future juncture due to the macroeconomic challenges that we have articulated, the Scottish Government would continue to have ultimate accountability for delivery without having the funding.

You probably guessed that I might pick up on a couple of those things. You mentioned housing. There is a big increase in the budget for affordable housing. I very much welcome that. Can the benefits of that—the multifactor economic benefits of house building in particular—be brought about quickly enough? It is not just about building more houses quickly; it is also about attracting private capital and about the sense of ambition and the mood music that the Government is giving out. Can that be done quickly enough, so that we will start to see real figures emerging in terms of actual delivery against projections? Will that more quickly attract organisations to the table for, for example, the critical issue of build to rent?

Good morning—in fact, good afternoon. It has been a long morning for everybody.

I have some general questions. First, in relation to where we are with the budget process and the final vote, discussions are still under way with at least some of the other parties. I appreciate that you will not be able to give the details of the discussions, but I am interested in getting a flavour of the type and extent of changes that you anticipate. Can you give us any more insight?

I will not press any further on that. I suppose that the main reason I was asking was because I am heartened by the renewed focus on growth in this budget and the sentiment that has led to that. I anticipate that the asks will be in spend, and therefore I am asking whether protecting the focus on growth can continue.

I will move on from that issue, although other members might want to come in with supplementaries on that. I want to raise a question about the Scottish National Investment Bank and accounting rules, which has come up in committee a couple of times.

I understand that UK Government accounting rules prevent SNIB and similar agencies from reinvesting profits. I am keen to see that change, which goes back to your fundamental point about trying to create wealth in the economy.

Cabinet secretary, will you give us an update on any discussions that you have had on that with the UK Government? It has been suggested that the introduction of a national wealth fund would perhaps cause it to look again at the rules, although I must admit that I find it dispiriting that the UK Government would only look at changing them because of something that it has instigated rather than because of something that we have tried to progress in Scotland.

It will not be a surprise that I want to continue the discussion about women-led businesses. We touched on the issue earlier and the cabinet secretary commented about £4 million being made available and so on, but I want to get a general sense of the activity that is under way to support women-led businesses. It would be useful to have the latest status on the pathways fund, which we have talked about, before I ask my other questions.

I know that that is a long-held interest of yours, cabinet secretary—in fact, you instigated the work with Ana Stewart. I will be frank. To what extent do you think that that effort is enough, even including the ambition for next year?

In the manifesto that we signed up to at the start of this parliamentary term, there was a promise of a women’s business centre and a £50 million contribution to the cost of it. Clearly, we are some way from the actuality of that ambition.

I make the point because I think that you have been very clear that public sector pounds spent must grow or add value to the wider economy. It is abundantly clear that fewer women-led businesses reach the critical five-year mark. Critically, this is about their contribution to the economy. Do you think that that effort is enough, cabinet secretary? If not, what approaches will you deploy to increase the funding for next year, even above that £4 million?

You make some important points about a culture shift, with which I completely agree. There is a business support element, even before people get to the point of going for funding.

A report published by Women’s Enterprise Scotland at the tail end of last year said that business support that is on offer still does not take a gendered lens. In other words—this is an issue that we have seen with banks—the operational nature of women-led businesses, which are often referred to as kitchen table businesses, is not understood. In that context, what consideration have you—or the Government—given to how enterprise agencies, or any public sector support, can take a truly gendered lens to women-led businesses?