Chamber and committees

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.

Yes.

I have been struck—without wishing to single out Michelle Thomson—by some of the questions that have been put to me on particular areas of interest. If the committee has aspirations for the information that it would like to see or any detail that it would like to have available to it, I will willingly consider how we can most positively respond to that.

We know already from data that the percentage of women-led small and medium-sized employers in Scotland has reduced from 20 per cent in 2015 to 14 per cent in 2019. That is an issue of real concern to us, and it prompted Ana Stewart’s review. We also know from other data that females in Scotland are about half as likely as males are to be early-stage entrepreneurs. The data already tells us that, hence the action that we are taking.

I would not want the committee to feel that we do not have the data to prompt the action that we need to take, such as the review, because I think that that data exists, and I have placed it on the public record today.

I am certainly happy to take away the questions on data and to respond to the committee. Some of those issues might be part of what Ana Stewart ends up recommending. That is speculation on my part, but I think that it would be sensible for me to wait to see what Ana Stewart produces and then to reflect on the issues that you are putting to me in the context of our response to her.

I will highlight our experience in relation to the point that Mark Logan made to the committee about the health of early-stage entrepreneurial activity in Scotland today. I attribute that to seeds that were planted pretty close to 10 years ago, when I took a decision to invest in Scottish EDGE, which has created a vibrant entrepreneurial community.

There was a lot of risk involved in that. When I was being advised on what I should consider when supporting such a scheme, I was properly advised of the degree of risk involved because of the likelihood that there would be business failures and reputational risk to the Government as a consequence. However, my view was that that was a risk worth taking. What has it done over all those years? It has created exactly what Mark Logan said to the committee.

That was not always the case—10 years before that, there was substantial concern about early-stage entrepreneurial activity in Scotland. I think that we largely arrested and resolved that problem by taking appropriate decisions about eight or nine years ago.

The challenges that we now need to focus on—many of our other measures, particularly those around the Scottish National Investment Bank, are supporting this—relate to scaling up business activity when we have the necessary investment capital to enable new-start businesses in Scotland to flourish and become much more significant contributors to the economy.

The Government made a commitment to invest about £2 billion in the Scottish National Investment Bank over a 10-year period to support investment in ventures that would generate significant economic impact and financial return in the Scottish economy. The budget provides for building up that investment. As we build it up, the Scottish National Investment Bank takes decisions about what investments it makes.

For example, in early December, the bank announced investment in a company called North Star Shipping Ltd. It is providing £50 million in a £95 million capital expenditure facility to allow the business to expand its fleet of service operation vessels, which are expected to support offshore wind projects in Scotland. That is a very good example of the bank using its resources.

The bank considers all the risks of an investment, because, as committee members will appreciate, there are no guarantees about such investments. Organisations such as the Scottish National Investment Bank must assess their investments. The bank considers whether there is a long-term business opportunity and whether there will be a return on the investment that it provides.

There will be other ventures of that type, where the bank will make an assessment and will draw down from resources that the Government has provided.

That principally relates to the completion of the reaching 100 per cent—R100—programme, which as Maggie Chapman and the committee will know, has been taken forward over a number of years and is now operational in all parts of the country.

The commitment exists to achieve the objectives of the R100 programme. In essence, we are looking at the detailed delivery of that programme year by year. That approach takes into account the changing picture of investment by telecommunications companies as they roll out their investment programmes, too. As we have seen in recent years, as changes take place in the technology available and the ability of telecoms companies to broaden their networks, it reduces the scale of the challenge under the R100 programme. It is a combination of those two factors.

I recognise all the relevant issues that Maggie Chapman raises about the importance of digital connectivity and its centrality to the ability to live and work in a range of locations around Scotland. It is important to remember that we have made absolutely colossal strides forward in the availability of such digital connectivity around Scotland.

SNIB is a long-term proposition for the Government. I describe it as, in essence, a long-term source of patient capital in the Scottish economy. We envisage SNIB being able to perform the role on a long-term basis; obviously, that has to be a long-term commercial basis. The issues of repayment and returns are significant, and we are keen to ensure that over the long-term lifespan of SNIB, it continues to perform that role in the Scottish economy.

No, I do not accept that. Scottish Enterprise’s resource has gone from £135 million to £141 million, which is an increase of £6 million, and its capital budget is going from £80 million to £76 million, which is a reduction of £4 million—so there is a net increase of £2 million. For South of Scotland Enterprise, there has been an increase in resource and capital when those are put together.