Chamber and committees

The question really relates to what the necessary capacity is that we need to have available in the employability budgets to support the return of people to the labour market. We had projected a significant increase in those budgets for the current year, which we have not been able to fulfil because of the issues that I have raised. We would look to support that activity as much as we can in recognition of the effectiveness of such expenditure, so I will monitor the situation very carefully.

I also give the assurance that one of the issues that I looked at in taking the decision in question was the capacity of programmes to deliver support to individuals. There is almost a demand-led element to the employability programmes. If we see during the course of the financial year that demand for them is rising and we are finding it difficult to meet the demand in the labour market, I will obviously look to address that issue during the financial year, if possible.

I think that the experience speaks for itself. Industrial action is enormously disruptive to the operation of our economy and society, so minimising industrial action by resolving industrial disputes is a very high priority for me. We regret the fact that we have had some industrial relations difficulties and that some disputes have led to strike action. We try to minimise that. We are going to extraordinary lengths to be available and accessible to trade unions in order to resolve issues. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and I will engage on such matters again in the course of this week.

The difficulties created by the lack of expansion of employability programmes are, for me, not as great as the disruption that could have come from industrial action, had we not resolved the issues that we have resolved.

We aim to secure alignment through the relationship that all our strategies have with realisation of the ambitions in the national performance framework. That framework, which has been the subject of extensive consultation and dialogue with Parliament and stakeholders, is designed to provide a sense of direction and a set of objectives for us to reach and to realise in all of our activity. To return to the answers that I gave to Maggie Chapman, I would like to think that we are aligned to support those objectives.

We must be open to being challenged on that. I spend a lot of my time trying to ensure that we have alignment, but if colleagues believe that we have not got that right, the Government should be open to responding to that.

A classic example relates to some of the dilemmas that we have had to wrestle with in relation to the energy strategy, the use of resources and the generation of economic opportunities. We have tried to reconcile those to the best of our ability in the energy policy framework. That is a good example of how we have tried to do what you describe.

No, it will not.

It is an increase of about £11 million, so it is not of the scale that was originally envisaged.

The delivery plans were published in October.

We will make a judgment about the report’s publication, but it will be during this calendar year.

The other thing—

As Mr MacDonald correctly identifies, there are now more businesses benefiting from the small business bonus scheme than there were when we set out that scheme. I should point out that we have put in place further incentives in the non-domestic rates scheme for companies involved in renewables to try to tailor the relief package and encourage more development. I expect the number of properties that will benefit from business rates to be about 100,000. We also have some transitional relief available for small companies in that respect.

These commitments have the hallmark of being part of the fabric of our proposition, but we have to make an active choice to maintain such schemes. The Government has considered the issues that have been raised in this area of policy and determined that our small business community continues to require that degree of support.

We have tried to address some of the issues through the design of the transitional relief scheme that is available, and we constantly monitor and assess the continued appropriateness of the companies that are involved in the small business bonus scheme and the appropriate levels at which business rates relief should be set. Some of the thinking from the Fraser of Allander Institute helps us in that respect.

On the first part of your question, I would be very surprised if we do not end up in such a position as a consequence of what Ana Stewart recommends to us. I am simply trying to get my process correct: we have commissioned the review and we will hear what the outcome is. I would be absolutely staggered if we do not end up taking specific measures to enhance the participation of women in entrepreneurialism as a consequence of Ana Stewart’s review. I think that that is highly likely but, regardless of what the review produces, the Government is committed to taking such action. That is why we have commissioned Ana Stewart to do the work that she is undertaking.

Your question about conditionality is much wider. If I play back what you were proposing, that would mean that, in the future, we would fund Scottish Enterprise only if it met particular targets on particular aspects of women’s participation in entrepreneurialism. There is nothing wrong with that as an idea, but I think that it would have wider implications for the future sustainability of organisations such as Scottish Enterprise.

We have not used the conditional funding model for public sector agencies. I am not saying that there is not an argument for it; there is a perfectly legitimate argument for it. Indeed, it might be a way of prompting the type of performance outcomes that we want to achieve, so I am not dismissing it. I am simply saying that it would require wide consideration of the nature of public expenditure and how we go about that. I think that Parliament would have some pretty broad views about that.

Okay.