Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was more of a lecture than an intervention. It is, pitifully, the case that only 9 per cent of Scottish businesses think that the SNP Government understands the business environment. That is the reality of the situation. The mood music and the operating environment are critical to attracting entrepreneurs and investment, and I have first-hand experience of that.

At the age of 33, after nearly a decade of running a publishing and conference business in London, I took out a mortgage on my house and flew out to Hong Kong with £50,000 to establish my own communications and conference business. The first stop was Hong Kong, which, like Singapore back in 2008—it has changed a bit since then—was avowedly international, low tax and pro-business. I recall the company formation process, which was very simple and easy, even for a resident. Through the grapevine—most likely, the grapevine in the Foreign Correspondents Club—the chief executive of Invest Hong Kong, who was an avuncular Brit called Mike Rowse, called me in to welcome who he thought was another large-scale British investor to the city. He maintained an interest in my venture even when he found out that the “50” that I was referring to was £50,000 rather than £50 million. However, as Mike said, from small acorns grow mighty oaks.

It is often the smaller start-ups that need the greatest support. Mike’s message then was very simple, and it can be articulated as, “Welcome to Hong Kong. Invest in Hong Kong. Tax is low. Regulation is light touch.” There were incentives to invest—for example, there was a tax holiday for SMEs in their first five years, which meant that, if they made a profit, they did not pay tax, up to a certain level. There was a two-tier profits tax—today, the lower level is just 8.25 per cent on the first £200,000 in profits. There were double taxation treaties in place to make sure that entrepreneurs and their companies could not be taxed twice. There was no VAT, and there were attractive tax deductions for capital expenditure. There was a low income tax rate, and no income tax had to be paid on earnings that were generated overseas. Those were all concrete measures that encouraged me to set up a business there, and Invest Hong Kong provided support for businesses big and small.

After growing that business in Hong Kong, I set up a similar business in Singapore. Again, the message was quite clear: Singapore was open for business, and, when you walked in through the door, there were people there to help you. In a very Singaporean way, there was a slightly more draconian set of rules to abide by, but, once you understood the nature of the legal system there, it was easy to navigate. Again, taxation was low.

I welcome the aspiration in the Scottish Government’s programme for government to establish an organisation called “InvestScotland”, which the Government says will be a one-stop shop for investors who are looking to come to Scotland. However, providing the mechanism to bring people here will not cut it if entrepreneurs and investors get to Scotland and realise that our taxes are too high, our skills base is not fit for purpose and our infrastructure and planning system will hold them back—and that is leaving aside the constitutional uncertainty that has been created by the SNP’s on-going obsession with independence, which I believe has been an issue.

When the most recent Scottish Government budget was considered, we advocated for tax cuts for individuals and businesses. We also advocate for a cull of the quangos that are producing the red tape that is holding many businesses back. There is a recognition that the Government needs to do more to ensure that we have the right skills, which will involve properly funding our colleges, universities and apprenticeship schemes. The Scottish Government must make that an absolute priority, otherwise there will be massive skills gaps that will prevent people from locating and growing their businesses here.

The Scottish Government has not thought seriously about the business environment in this country, nor has it thought seriously about the international lessons that—as Sir Tom Hunter said—it can learn from Singapore and other Asian nations, as well as from nations closer to home.

There is a commonsense solution to the fact that the SNP is failing to create the space and the environment in which Scottish entrepreneurs and those whom we might want to attract here to set up businesses can thrive. However, there is a template that would enable the Government to do that, and I urge it to adopt that template quickly.

Will the Deputy First Minister take an intervention?

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the scale of online bullying in schools. (S6O-04758)

Dumfries and Galloway youth council is an organisation that is run for and by young people. Last year, it highlighted bullying as one of its top five major local concerns. As the minister said, online bullying does not end at the school gates; it is often hidden and can cause untold misery for its victims every hour of the day.

In response, Dumfries and Galloway Council has announced a review of bullying, which is taking the views of schools, children, young people, parents and carers into account. However, councils cannot tackle that massive problem alone. Will the minister commit to ensuring that schools have the resources—both guidance and funding—to tackle concerns about online bullying? Will she update the Parliament on what engagement the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government to ensure that social media giants do everything that they can to protect Scotland’s children from online harm?

I think that we have corrected the record, but I have slightly lost my train of thought.

The minister is talking about young and ambitious entrepreneurs who are global in their mindset. Would she advise a young, ambitious, globally minded entrepreneur to base themselves on one of Scotland’s islands at the moment?

Will the member take an intervention?

Despite the minister’s amnesia, £95 million in Barnett consequentials for RAAC remediation was given to the Government, but it was absorbed into the Scottish Government’s general revenue budget rather than being earmarked specifically for addressing the RAAC crisis. That implies that, now, remedial works can proceed only at a pace that the Government can afford rather than based on urgency. Given the safety concerns and the substantial costs faced by local authorities, what steps will the minister take to ensure that that dedicated funding is restored? In other words, where has the RAAC money gone?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek to put this on the record and to find out from you how the record can be corrected. A freedom of information release last year revealed that

“The Scottish Government received £97.1 million in Barnett consequentials following the UK Government’s announcement in March 2020 to remediate”

non-aluminium composite material—non-ACM—cladding systems

“on residential buildings ... where leaseholders would incur the costs or where the costs were a threat to the financial stability of the social housing provider.”

I mistook that cladding system for RAAC, so I would like to correct the record.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the education secretary has had with national health service boards and local authorities regarding the levying of fees for hospital teaching costs for children who routinely attend independent schools. (S6O-04726)

I welcome the decision, given the clear level of concern among campaigners, stakeholders and local communities. I recognise that the consultation led to real concern and anxiety among those communities, which have long been neglected by the Scottish National Party. Will the Government now undertake to come forward with a real plan for investment in rural areas that can deliver for communities in Dumfries and Galloway and East Ayrshire to support tourism, agriculture and infrastructure in the south of Scotland, which the SNP has failed to do in the past 18 years?