Chamber and committees

I am grateful to my friend and colleague Michelle Thomson for bringing the debate to the chamber. I know how passionate she is about the role and contribution of women in innovation and entrepreneurship in Scotland, and I commend her contribution and commitment to that.

I also commend the work of the cross-party group on women in enterprise, which Michelle Thomson convenes. The group has provided an excellent forum in which women entrepreneurs can collaborate on issues such as access to finance, internationalisation, the underrepresentation of women in enterprise and, of course, women in energy.

The motion is comprehensive and, although there is a need to stimulate innovation and entrepreneurship in STEM-based sectors, it recognises the role of the wider business sectors in achieving net zero. I refer to technology and digital skills, planners, lawyers and corporate hospitality, to name but a few. The motion also highlights the fact that the number of females entering STEM-related education, employment and business start-ups remains weak in Scotland.

My interest in women in STEM is deeply linked to the north-east energy sector and the rapidly growing demand for a strong STEM workforce to help Scotland become a global energy hub. Women entrepreneurs have a central role in that positive economic journey, and a lot of work is already being done in the energy sector to make that happen.

Earlier this session, I led a members’ business debate on increasing the participation of women and girls in STEM learning and careers. Women in academia told me of the crucial role of inspirational teachers, parents and carers in shaping positive attitudes about gender and work. They also told me that the parity in STEM learning between boys and girls gives way to a divergence as children move through secondary school, with girls being significantly less likely than boys to choose STEM subjects beyond higher stage—the leaky pipeline. Given that girls often perform better than boys across all STEM subjects at school, and despite the fact that we can now purchase a Barbie professor doll, we must ask what is behind that divergence.

Beyond education, women told me of common themes in the challenges that women in STEM face, such as access to affordable childcare, after-school clubs and elder care. There is also much consensus on how to respond, and there are some good examples of work that is already under way.

I note that the 2024 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor report, which is mentioned in the motion, sets out further comprehensive detail on the support and resources that women entrepreneurs need—for example, access to markets and financing, and regulations that make working for themselves at least as attractive as being employed.

The headline figures in the Scottish Government pathways report on women in entrepreneurship are that one in five of Scotland’s entrepreneurs are women and that 2 per cent of institutional investment in Scotland goes to women-led companies. I was pleased to hear the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic respond to Michelle Thomson’s questions at a recent meeting of the Economy and Fair Work Committee about the funding that derived from that piece of work. She confirmed her desire to

“take the funding to £4 million”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 8 January 2025; c 26.]

in the coming year. I also commend Michelle Thomson for her tenacity in probing further, not just on funding but on issues such as culture and data—both of which are extremely important. I am very keen to hear more detail on the progress in relation to the pathways report in the cabinet secretary’s response.

I commend all the women entrepreneurs in Scotland who are taking the brave steps to secure their own livelihoods, shape their own futures and change the world. I wish Michelle Thomson all the best in helping to create better opportunities for women in business.

Do you want to come in with a supplementary question, Ben Macpherson, or not quite yet?

I will therefore bring in Pauline McNeill now, followed by Ben Macpherson.

There is some helpful information in your submission on the extent to which some older people are still excluded from the digital space. It was helpful of you to set that scene.

I am interested in the experience of the pandemic. Do you have any comments on the impact of the pandemic on older people and on whether or not there was a kind of positive outcome in so far as it brought older people into the digital space, where they might not have been otherwise? I am interested in whether a little bit of that shift happened.

Simon Brown, in response to Pauline McNeill, you said that the proposal was going for faster and, I think, more efficient justice rather than for quality—

As members have no questions, we will move to our second item of business, which is consideration of the motion to recommend approval of the draft affirmative SSI on which we have just taken oral evidence.

Motion moved,

That the Criminal Justice Committee recommends that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Angela Constance]

Motion agreed to.

Are members content to delegate responsibility to me and the clerks to approve a short factual report to the Parliament on the affirmative instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

The report will be published shortly.

Our third item of business is consideration of a negative instrument. As members do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the negative instrument, are we content with it?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay. I will bring in members.