Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

That would be very helpful.

I am mindful of SNIB’s evidence to the committee that, because of year-end, there is a hard date. It cited a specific example of when it was trying to close a deal before year-end. If you could bear with me for a minute while I find the text in my notes. SNIB said:

“Last year, we got to 31 March and we did not know whether were going to be able to complete a £50 million deal according to the rules.”

I encourage the cabinet secretary, or whoever the most appropriate person is, to find out the latest status on that, because 31 March and, therefore, the potential to close other deals, is not that far away.

SNIB added:

“We got it done, and we did not compromise our underwriting in doing so”.—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 25 September 2024; c 28],

However, it commented that the need to get a deal done while fitting in with the rules could be played against it.

I will be asking about that.

That is heartening and very good news, indeed.

Yes, sorry—I, too, was triggered by the attraction of getting into geek mode.

I would be interested in the cabinet secretary’s reflections on this issue. She started to explore the concept of turnover as vanity and net profit as sanity. It strikes me as interesting that the majority of employees in both hospitality and retail businesses are women. Therefore, in looking at what data is gathered and used to make assessments, we also need to consider the role of women, because the majority of those employees are women. In that respect, and in the light of my earlier comment about turnover being vanity, looking at net profit and salaries, given that the employees are mostly women, would also yield some data.

My other reflection on what the cabinet secretary is suggesting is that, although consent is imperative, it will probably be very problematic, because a different pathway will be cleaved for businesses that are, in effect, paying their women employees less than they would if they were men.