Seòmar agus comataidhean

I completely agree. I agree that it is complex and that it is a case of being careful what you wish for, particularly when it comes to early-stage industries. However, we should look at such an approach with an open mind and stress that agencies will have to do so, too, as a way of shifting the dial. Mark Logan, who appeared before the committee last week, was clear about the fact that the initiatives that are under way are good in and of themselves, but what he emphasised, and what drives me, is that we should start to plant the trees that will effect structural change. Unless we ask such hard questions and start to look much more firmly at conditionality in areas in which we can be clear about, or at least make a good assessment of, the outcomes, we will carry on producing worthy reviews—I agree that reviews such as the Stewart review are worth while—but we will not shift the dial.

Thank you.

That is good to hear. You can be fully confident that I will be asking how, specifically, those steps are bold, audacious and ambitious.

Good morning, Deputy First Minister. Thank you for attending today’s meeting.

I want to follow up on a deeply held interest of mine: the role of women and their contribution and entrepreneurialism. Our pre-budget calls mentioned disaggregation of data and progress on the women’s business centre. I thank you for the replies from the Scottish Government, but the ironic thing is that, in our pre-budget letter last year, we also asked about disaggregation of data.

Before I ask my questions, I say that I recognise the worthwhile efforts of the Scottish Government to promote this area, and we all look forward with interest and anticipation to Ana Stewart’s review.

Setting that aside, I have three simple questions to move us away from the review and get under the skin of what is a structural issue. First, can you play a part in ensuring that all data that is collected by the Scottish Government is routinely disaggregated by gender?

I have a final question on the same theme. You might not be able to answer this just now, but I would like you to give consideration to setting targets to increase the participation of women, particularly with regard to entrepreneurialism, and to give firm consideration to—and, if this is not possible, to say why you cannot do it—making any funding conditional on meeting those targets.

Going back to my earlier point about data, I note that, as individual projects are planned, I will want to see specific data on the percentage or numerical increase in female entrepreneurs in each category. There are various projects. I will be asking to see that data so that I can make my own assessment of how bold and ambitious we are.

I am going to ask some more questions about women entrepreneurs. When NSET was published, we saw the introduction of a number of worthwhile initiatives. Given the thrust of that approach, who would not buy into it? However, I want to explore in a bit more detail how you will ensure that, as we move into specific projects, female entrepreneurs will be at the heart of the strategy, so that when you develop your key performance indicators or whichever success measures you will have, they will be specific.

For example, in the context of the development to begin under project 1, the delivery plans state that there will be commitments to

“Increase the number of talented early stage company founders”

and

“Increase the number and diversity of entrepreneurs”.

I am not asking you to answer this question now, but I would want to know the levels to and from which you expect female entrepreneurs in early-stage start-ups to move. Will you be able to state that, and do you plan to do so as you put in the detailed development?

Secondly, are you able to commit to making the targets bold, audacious, ambitious and, frankly, frightening in terms of moving the dial for female entrepreneurs and their contributions?

Thank you.

Good morning. First, I must disclose, as per my entry in the register of members’ interests, that I own some buy-to-let property and that I was previously a member of SAL, but I have not been for some years.

The convener has asked a lot of the questions that I might have asked. However, I want to explore a bit more your thinking about the market.

As a statement of intent, I am not uncomfortable with the Scottish Government raising revenue through taxation or with a longer trend of diminishing the private rented sector to private landlords and increasing social housing. That is not an issue for me. I am interested in exploring what your calculations are on the long-term effect in the market and in the round triggered by the ADS. As we have already explored, that falls into LBTT. Can you talk me through your risk assessment of the policy change, what you see as the risks, to whom they apply, and the impact when they occur? I want to understand a bit more how you make policy decisions beyond deciding to raise revenue, which I entirely appreciate.

You make my point for me: the policy cannot be seen in isolation. I am trying to explore your consideration of the housing market, in which, for a variety of reasons, the supply of properties to rent might well be diminished. There is anecdotal evidence of that already happening; indeed, Professor Graeme Roy has pointed that out. That is not hitting yet, because income from LBTT is being brought in. However, it cannot be that far down the road before that has an effect on the wider market that will disproportionately affect people who need to rent and continue to rent in respect of rent rises and people exiting the market.

I go back to my original question. Do you undertake a risk assessment of tax changes that is based on setting out what the risk is, the probability of its occurring, and the impact that that will have if it occurs?