Seòmar agus comataidhean

No—it is fine. You have put your view on the record, and that is helpful. Thank you. I appreciate you attending today.

On governance, you correctly point out that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government have a role to play. From a purely governance perspective, I have always been a little unclear as to how that arrangement works. Generally speaking, in any governance structure, there will be one authority that is ultimately accountable. In this instance, the position is less clear from a governance perspective. Who do you see being the ultimate accountable body when both the Scottish Government and the UK Government are providing funding? How do you see the arrangement working in that regard?

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.

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?

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.

That is heartening and very good news, indeed.

I will be asking about that.

You make some important points about a culture shift, with which I completely agree. There is a business support element, even before people get to the point of going for funding.

A report published by Women’s Enterprise Scotland at the tail end of last year said that business support that is on offer still does not take a gendered lens. In other words—this is an issue that we have seen with banks—the operational nature of women-led businesses, which are often referred to as kitchen table businesses, is not understood. In that context, what consideration have you—or the Government—given to how enterprise agencies, or any public sector support, can take a truly gendered lens to women-led businesses?

You opened your remarks by referring to the committee’s letter and, in particular, the disaggregation of data. I have no wish to create a massive data factory, because I appreciate that that would expend a huge amount of time. My interest in the issue started with a simple question that I put to a business organisation when I asked for assurances that it routinely disaggregated all its data sets by gender. I received a long, fulsome answer that said absolutely nothing and could be summarised as, “No.” I then started to think about all the other data sets—you mentioned private equity, cabinet secretary.

Will you give the committee a flavour of how actively you are progressing work so that, when asked, any body that is in receipt of public funds—as well as the Government—can give assurances that they are routinely disaggregating their data sets by gender?

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.