Seòmar agus comataidhean

This is my final question. You mention in the report the gender pay gap—the gap between what men and women are paid. That is an issue in the financial services industry and it is an issue in the bank. Is it a problem, and what is the bank doing to address it?

As we have discussed, there are inherent risks when investing—if there is investment in companies that are deemed to be high risk, there will be winners and losers. Probably the biggest loser among SNIB’s investments so far was its investment in Circularity Scotland. You have said repeatedly that the bank sees itself as independent and that it does not like political interference—it would say that there is no political interference—but Circularity Scotland was set up in the wake of Government proposals for a deposit return scheme, so could there at least be the perception that there was an element of politics in the decision to invest a lot of money in Circularity Scotland?

But when it makes that investment, has it got an exit strategy? If you put in, say, £10 million, A, you are not going to want to lose that money and, B, you will want to make a profit. Do you think that it has such a plan for its various investments?

I was a member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee when we looked at the matter in June 2023. I put it to Willie Watt, the chair of the board, that the bank had demonstrated a lack of due diligence and had not thought things through. He told me:

“Sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes people get things wrong, and sometimes the facts turn out to be different from what we thought they would be.”

He also said that the bank

“will make losses on investments”.—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 21 June 2023; c 7.]

Well, we know that. Has the bank learned any lessons from that calamitous investment?

Okay. That is really useful.

Looking across the bank’s investment portfolio, I can see that it is made up of mostly small to medium-sized Scotland-based companies that need a helping hand to get to the next stage of their development. That is all great, but the case that the convener was asking about, the Gresham House Forestry Fund, is not in that category. It is an investment fund that certainly did not need Scottish Government money. Is that an appropriate investment for the bank to make?

I think that the cabinet secretary recognises the issue; what she has not offered is any kind of solution. I hear what she says, which is that there are other things in place. There might well be things in place—she has said that repeatedly during our consideration of the bill—but they are not working, so we need something new. I know that the cabinet secretary is committed to having lots of discussions, but this matter is very important. Albeit that it affects only a small number of people who pass through the system, they still matter, and they matter to Scotland. Are we able to do something for them?

I think that it would. I can speak from the tenant’s point of view by again relating my experience. I am now on my third rental flat in Edinburgh and have some experience of the market. I remember moving out of one flat and being asked to clean it. My wife was a cleaner—that was her business—and she came in and cleaned the flat, yet the letting agent found specks of dust on a skirting board and tried to withhold money from us. That was the flat that I referred to earlier, which was being put up for sale. The landlady said, “Take what you want. Empty the flat,” so I took what I wanted. That was the deal, so it was absolutely ludicrous that the letting agent was trying to withhold money when the flat was cleaner than it had been when I moved in.

I pushed back and they relented, because they realised that they were not going to win. That must happen all the time—it is a racket. If deposits were paid directly to the scheme administrator, we would end up with a better system. It is very positive that the cabinet secretary has offered to work with Meghan Gallacher.

That brings me to my amendment 73 and Ross Greer’s amendment 189. We have heard that there is a patchwork situation across Scotland. Some universities offer to act as guarantors, while some do not. There are local authority schemes in some areas but not in others. I think that the cabinet secretary recognises that. She said that she is prepared to work to resolve those matters ahead of stage 3, and I am prepared to accept that. If we have sensible discussions about arriving at a better situation—which, I am sure, is what Ross Greer is aiming for, as, indeed, we all are—ahead of stage 3, we can see where we get to. If we are not happy, we can lodge amendments again. However, I hope that we will find a solution.

On that basis, I will not press amendment 73.

Amendment 73, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 183 and 189 not moved.

Amendment 535 moved—[Maggie Chapman].

It is a very good question, but I do not have the numbers. I suspect that they are small, but it is very much an issue. We can explore getting the numbers from the sector in the next few weeks. It would be useful to have the figures, but I do not have them. I know from the report of the cross-party group that there is a huge shortfall in accommodation for students in general, but that does not relate to the specific issue that I am talking about.

I am keen to hear what other members have to say and I will decide what to do on the basis of what I hear.

I move amendment 73.

Monitoring is key. The questions are, who does the monitoring, and then, who does the enforcement? The reality at the moment, is that, if you are a tenant and you are told by the landlord, “I intend to sell; therefore, you need to go”, chances are that the tenant will just go and will not bother monitoring what happens with that property.

Then, of course, the tenant falls foul of the cost of removal. Maggie Chapman raised that very good point in the discussion on amendment 251. Removal costs can be extremely high. I have been in that position myself here in Edinburgh. The property did sell—I checked—but I incurred significant costs to move. If the property had not sold and I was not monitoring whether it had, it could just have been rented out again. These are significant issues, so who does the monitoring?

I wonder whether the issue is best dealt with at a UK level, and whether conditions should be attached to the issuing of a grant, which would tackle the issue that Mr Griffin raises.