Chamber and committees

There are three things that I would like to ask about, all of which arise from evidence that the committee has taken in the past couple of weeks.

I will start by asking about support for businesses in the defence sector. As you know, defence is a key strength of the Scottish economy; it is one in which we have seen a lot of good news recently in terms of winning international orders; and it is an area in which the opportunity for growth is substantial because of the international situation and the fact that, across the western world, countries are increasing defence expenditure. In an area in which we have expertise, knowledge and experience, we can do much better.

The Scottish Government has dropped the previous policy about not funding munitions—I will not ask you about that, because it is past history. A new policy is in place in relation to not supporting companies that might have a connection with exports to Israel. I asked Scottish Enterprise about that when it came to the committee on 17 September. Its answers were not particularly clear about where that policy sits. In response to my questions, Adrian Gillespie said:

“We are working through the implications of the changes that have been made recently ... We need to work through which companies are affected by that.”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 17 September 2025; c 7.]

Can you be clear about what exactly the Scottish Government policy is and what the practical impact of that is in terms of support from public bodies such as Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland?

That is very helpful. Let me ask you to illustrate that with an example, if you can. You will be very familiar with Leonardo in Edinburgh, which is a very large defence contractor that supplies radar systems, including to Lockheed Martin. In the past, it has been criticised because some of the Lockheed Martin planes end up in Israel. Does your policy mean that a company such as Leonardo could not be supported through the public bodies that you referred to?

Thank you.

I have a second question, which arises from some of the evidence that we took last week from the Scottish National Investment Bank. I asked about a specific investment that it has made in Gresham House, which is the largest commercial forester in the United Kingdom. I believe that it is now Scotland’s second-largest landowner, so it is a very substantial enterprise. It has assets under management that are worth £8.7 billion, and its ambition is to grow that figure to £200 billion by 2030. The Scottish National Investment Bank has given it £50 million of public money to assist with the purchase of Todrig and Whitslade, which is an estate in the Borders. Why do we need to spend taxpayers’ money supporting such a large organisation to purchase land?

That is absolutely correct. Those amendments were ruled out of scope. That bill might have been an opportunity to do something about this issue. I believe that five councils have now looked at the levy and decided not to proceed or to pause. I understand that, when Argyll and Bute Council met last week, one of the reasons that it decided to pause was the confusion. It did not want to take a decision until it knew where this would end up. In that case, would it be sensible to have a moratorium on any further decisions, given that we do not know what the options might be?

That is very helpful. Thank you.

One issue that I explored with Scottish Enterprise was the complexity of supply chains. A lot of international exports are sourced from a variety of companies. I outlined the scenario for Leonardo, which is that some of its output might end up in Israel. Would the munitions policy also apply to subcontractors, such as companies that supply components or provide training facilities to staff? Would they also be impacted by the policy?

I asked that question because we were told by Willie Watt from SNIB that the bank had made the investment because it promoted biodiversity and there would be a higher percentage of non-commercial woodland on that site. Information that I have been given since then by our former colleague Andy Wightman suggests that that might not be the case, but perhaps the committee can follow that up directly with SNIB.

My last question is about the visitor levy, which is directly in your portfolio. The committee took evidence on that three weeks ago. There was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing, which you are very familiar with, in correspondence between the committee and Ivan McKee last week, and what was said was then contradicted. Can you tell us exactly where the Scottish Government is now in relation to potential changes to the visitor levy to allow councils the freedom to introduce a flat charge as opposed to a percentage charge?

I believe that amendments were lodged to the Housing (Scotland) Bill that the Presiding Officer decided were not in scope—

I have one more question on this subject. From today, businesses in Edinburgh have to charge the visitor levy for bookings into next year. An Edinburgh colleague of mine has passed to me a communication that they got from constituents who run a caravan park in the Lothians, who take their bookings through Booking.com. They have just been told by Booking.com that, although it can institute the visitor levy on top of bookings that are made, it cannot deal with the visitor levy being capped at five consecutive nights. If somebody books for seven or 14 nights, say, Booking.com has to apply the visitor levy on the total sum. It suggests that the business should then refund the balance to its guests on their departure. That is a bit of a boorach, is it not?

Good morning. Looking at your accounts, I see that, since your launch, you have made £785 million in investments, with an unrealised loss of £76.9 million—or 10 per cent, more or less—also reported. I entirely appreciate that, in the business that you are in, there will be losses, but is 10 per cent a reasonable level of loss, given where the bank is?

It is helpful to have that put in context.

I want to ask about another specific investment, and an issue that has been raised with committee members. You have invested in the Gresham House forest growth and sustainability fund. We have had communication from the Lilliesleaf, Ashkirk and Midlem community council in the Borders. It is very concerned by Gresham House’s acquiring of an estate at Todrig and Whitslade, which is biodiverse moorland; its plan is to plant large numbers of Sitka spruce, and the community council is concerned that that will have a negative impact on biodiversity. I believe that Gresham House has received £50 million investment from SNIB. Given that your remit is to help the environment, is that investment reasonable?