Seòmar agus comataidhean

You should ignore me until you are finished.

[Inaudible.]—decisions within your own stated timeframes.

Your point is a good one, but the problem with it is—I think that we are in danger of taking other members of the committee down a rabbit hole that they probably do not want to go down—that, although local authorities collect non-domestic rates, because the money is redistributed from the centre, they are not incentivised to do what you suggest. I agree that we need them to want to do it, but—this will need to be a much longer conversation, which is why I suggest that we might want to park the issue for now—you are right to say that that would be a big benefit, and you are right to say that the process would need to be led by local authorities. However, because of the way in which the system works, they are probably not incentivised to do that.

I apologise to everyone witnessing the session for having to turn on my camera—I hope that it is not too off-putting.

I want to follow up on a couple of things. I do not think that I am paraphrasing Kate Forbes unfairly by saying that this is not job done and that we are moving on to the next stage. What I have been reflecting on as I have been listening to the evidence is that there has been a lot of focus on dialogue and communication, and there has been discussion of processes. However, I have not necessarily heard about how Government will make the environment better for business overall.

I ask you, Deputy First Minister, to unpack a statement that you made earlier, which I thought was quite interesting. You were reflecting on the fact that getting this right will mean that agencies such as Marine Scotland and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will have business growth at the heart of what they understand they need to do. Clearly, we need agencies such as Marine Scotland to be able to deliver the throughput of decision making if we are going to roll out things such as offshore wind. Will you explain and expand on that remark a bit more?

I could not agree more with what you said about pension funds—we need to attract pension funds from elsewhere in the UK to invest here and to make sure that our pension funds take similar decisions.

I cannot resist gently saying to the Deputy First Minister that I think that the situation as regards consenting and planning is still a concern, even if it has got better. I was slightly amused by what she said, because, as a former retailer, I am somewhat familiar with the challenges for retailing that have been created by online shopping. That highlights the point that, where there is greater complexity, it becomes ever more important to think through the touch points. That was the point that I was trying to make.

It would be remiss of me not to raise the subject of non-domestic rates when we have the Deputy First Minister in front of us. I remind the committee of my entry in the register of interests: I am director and owner of a business with retail interests.

The Deputy First Minister mentioned that progress had been made. I wonder whether she could outline her view of what that progress looks like. I do not think that the evidence that we received directly from some of the people involved was necessarily as positive as that. She will know—I have shared this with her in private, too—that there are some deep dysfunctions with the way in which the non-domestic rates system operates, not least of which is the balance between different types of businesses. Consumer-facing businesses are taxed disproportionately in comparison with businesses in other sectors.

What progress has been made? What outcomes can business expect from those conversations?

I do not want to subject the committee to the detail of this, but I would be interested in getting detail on valuation transparency in particular, because, for a lot of businesses, the devil is in the detail. There is not great transparency or clarity on the methodology. I have looked at how individual premises have had their calculations done, and some people would probably find that process quite eye opening.

I am interested to hear the detail of what is being discussed in relation to valuation transparency that will lead to people having greater clarity on how rateable values are arrived at. I am not convinced that the process is as consistent and robust as it could be.

Forgive me, but the flexibility point is important. Business is constantly having to reflect the changing world. You are quite correct to say that there are a number of external factors that 12 or 18 months ago we might not have predicted. However, I wonder whether the consenting point is a different one. It is important to pull out that point, because it is one that is fundamental to business. It is about investment decisions, but it is also something that touches on other policy areas and is about explicit policy.

My point is that if you cannot embed Government processes that align with its explicitly stated economic objectives—ones that are not just a sideshow but have been front and centre of dialogue—does that not highlight a bit of a problem with regard to the Government’s ability to map out those objectives against the processes that have touch points on decision making? Further to that, if we cannot get it right for things such as installation of offshore wind, which is high profile, what hope do we have for more mundane day-to-day economic objectives, such as growing SMEs or helping our high streets?

I both completely agree and completely disagree. The fundamental point here is that a very significant number of the microeconomic levers that shape the economy lie with local authorities. That is most profoundly the case in relation to planning, because it is through the planning system that land use is controlled. However, I would question whether the system is wired up correctly so that local authorities are incentivised to understand those impacts and to align them with economic growth.

It is an interesting issue. I agree with the fundamental point that we need to work more closely with local authorities to ensure that the growth agenda is delivered, because they are in control of many of the levers, including in planning, transport and education. Those are fundamental economic levers, and I agree that we need to have a lot more focus on how we deploy them.

We have probably gone off on those tangents enough, but I am looking forward to discussing them further in the future.

That is an important point. Angus Macpherson was clear in his report that the Government needed to stop treating those things as wish lists and that they need to have a much more serious list of investable opportunities. I wonder whether that is not part of the same problem. It is good that you have that, but the real issue is ensuring that all of your processes that might stand in the way of those investments are aligned with objectives.

You just said that the resource level has had to be put in to achieve a 12-month decision-making timescale. I understood that to be the policy before that resource went in. Does that not indicate that there has not been an alignment of all Government processes towards its broader business and economic objectives?

That is a moment to acknowledge that you had not got it right, is it not?