Chamber and committees

I will go back to Simon Crichton and Fraser Sime. How do we ensure that companies get beyond start-up and how do we deal with the valley of death for post start-up companies?

Of course. We see what the Scottish Council for Development and Industry has called “the valley of death” or “the missing middle”, where Scottish start-ups fail to commercialise or scale up because of lack of support and lack of access to capital. Do you envisage that changing?

I thank the panel for their contributions today. I have two questions. First, we have heard from each of you about different positive incentives and approaches to funding people who are doing the right thing and who have positive action in mind. Is there any likelihood that you or others will increase the cost of funding for companies in high-carbon sectors or high-carbon supply chains? Is there a negative instrument?

Secondly, how do we make sure that we do not continue with the “valley of death”, or “missing middle”, in which Scottish start-ups fail to commercialise or achieve scale due to lack of access to funding?

I ask all three witnesses to respond briefly to the first question about increasing costs to fund grey companies. The second question is for the two banking folk.

I will cut in there. I am talking about lending to all SMEs, not just those that are involved in house building.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his responses to the questions so far. Will he say a little more about what the Scottish Government is doing to raise awareness among the Scottish public about cybercrime and the damage that it can do, not only to the vulnerable people Pauline McNeill mentioned but more generally across all our communities?

Many of us have, for some considerable time, given much thought to the role that Scotland has played in championing progressive values—on climate action, on welcoming immigrants, on peace and, importantly, on how we can be better.

Although we have a long and proud tradition of leading change around the world and of creating progressive values, we must also understand the role that Scotland has played in the worst episodes of imperialism, old and new, from slavery to the hosting of nuclear weapons. That is not to say that, as Scots, we are somehow unable to change or make recompense for those episodes. However, we must recognise that they are not just issues of the past. The long shadow of slavery darkens the present day. The impact of our role in imperialism continues to drive division, from Ireland to south Asia. We can, though, redeem those actions and become a global force for good. But before I speak more about how we can be a global force for good, I implore everyone here—indeed, all Scots—to recognise the darker elements of our history as well as the more fêted moments.

We see at Westminster the outcome of having a Government that cannot see the historical impact of its actions. The UK Government’s abandonment of its commitment to international development funding is disgraceful, short-sighted and contemptible. We continue to make the case for restoring the funding. Although cutting aid might play well to British empire chauvinists in the home counties, it is nothing short of a default on the UK’s obligation to return some of the plunder of imperialism to those from whom we stole.

I want Scotland to do better. I want Scotland to live up to all our aspirations as a global builder of peace and justice. I want Scotland to be a champion for enhancing the rights of people at home while recognising that those same rights apply to all individuals and communities across the globe. I want Scotland to find our role in the world as being a force for good.

Even without being a fully independent state, Scotland, as a nation with devolved powers, can take a more active role in the international community. We can build our influence and contribute to global efforts to address the pandemic, enhance human rights and progress the transition to a net zero economy. A significant part of climate justice relates to the way in which our emissions have a disproportionate effect on people in the global south.

I know that we can do better. In the previous session of the Parliament, Scottish Greens forced the Scottish Qualifications Authority to undertake a review of its international activities. That resulted in withdrawal from six countries whose human rights records would cause us all concern, including Saudi Arabia.

More than 25 years ago, Robin Cook spoke of an ethical foreign policy, marking a move from self-interest. Although he was unable to deliver on that, he set an important principle. We need to adopt another approach: policy coherence. We simply should not be arming Yemen while sending aid to Yemen to ameliorate the damage that our arms do. Similarly, we should not be using public funds or support—more than £31 million in enterprise funding in the past 15 years—to line the pockets of international arms dealers, whose weapons have been linked to alleged war crimes, killing civilians. That is both morally wrong and economically unjustified.

An ethical approach and policy coherence must run right through the Government and all its actions. As members suggested, that will not always be easy. It will mean a shift in thinking. It will mean doing things in a way that is very different from business as usual. It will mean moving beyond the policy silos of the past. We cannot have one bit of the Government doing one thing and another bit directly undermining it.

We need policy coherence and progressive values at the heart of our global mission. That means that we need to think about everything that we do, from climate justice to the manufacturing that we support, to make sure that it is advancing all our positive values across the world.

I share the Deputy First Minister’s deep disappointment about today’s decision, but it is perhaps more surprising and disappointing that the UK Government decided to challenge this Parliament’s unanimous decision in that way, given that a working system for intercepting legislation has long been in place in relation to European Union law. We now appear to be in a position where the UK Government is not interested in co-operation in the common good to allow us to protect our children’s rights; it is interested only in defending insular borders.

As part of the co-operation agreement between the Scottish Greens and the Scottish Government, we will introduce world-leading human rights legislation, which will enshrine in Scots law the right to a healthy environment, and dignity and rights for older people and LGBTI people. Will the Deputy First Minister advise us of the implications of today’s decision for that legislation? How can we ensure that neither legal technicalities nor the UK Government’s insularity will prevent our enshrining human rights in Scots law?

Thank you for coming along to talk to us.

Following on from the convener’s questions, I am interested to explore the relationship between your proposed bill and other things that we know are happening in the coming year. The Government has made a commitment to introduce the good food nation bill this year. In addition, later in the session, treaties that include the right to food will be incorporated into Scots law as part of the human rights bill. Do you have any comments on that?

I thank the witnesses for what they have told us so far. I want to explore some of the progress and barriers a little bit more. I would like to ask this of all of you, but I heard what the convener had to say about time, so I will focus on Paul Bradley’s response. You spoke about the restrictions and the barriers around long-term funding, and about the bureaucracy around funding applications and so on. In a previous life—I am going back to the Scottish compact framework days of the 2000s—I was well aware of all that.

I will link those challenges and barriers to something on which we can all agree we have not made enough progress: prevention. Ten years on from the Christie commission, we are still not seeing the necessary level of investment in prevention, never mind the sustaining of current services or full cost recovery. What do you and your members need so that we can ensure that we can have preventative spend as well as sustaining current services using the full cost recovery model that is so important?

That is fine. I am happy to hand over to Pam Duncan-Glancy.