Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay. The point is we have to be flexible, which is perhaps one of the things that has not been raised in this committee session so far. We have to be flexible. The processes need to be able to adapt and flex in response to new issues. We were not anticipating an increase in ENICs to be such a massive issue, and businesses are scrambling to respond. The agriculture sector did not expect various changes to come through, and it is scrambling to respond. Beyond our shores, we might not have expected Russia to invade Ukraine three years ago and what that would mean. My point is that our processes need to be flexible enough to respond, which is why the new deal for business was not about specific policies; it was about processes.

My confusion about the question is that the example that I have given you demonstrates where we have done it well. Recognising the volume of planning and consenting applications, we doubled the resource. We are not still talking here about the fact that that resource still needs to be doubled; I am here with a completed action—it has been doubled.

I have spoken to Leon Thompson several times, and I understand the particular frustrations in hospitality and tourism. It has been a pretty tough period. However, taking Leon Thompson as an example, my diary and that of Richard Lochhead will confirm that there is extensive engagement with that sector. The question is whether we can do more to relieve some of the pressures on the sector. I imagine that, if you drill down into what some of the pressures are right now, those will include the massive hike in energy costs and the pressures of employer national insurance contributions going up. There will also be a number of other points that businesses in the sector will wish to make.

We do what we can to relieve some of those pressures. We certainly understand and engage extensively with those businesses on what their issues are. Government then has to make choices, in the round, about how to deploy resources as effectively as possible. That is where I take a more balanced approach that is open and transparent about the ways in which we can meet some of those asks but that acknowledges that, in some cases, we may not be able to meet those asks. That is the case for every Government. Yes, the Government has a focus on economic growth, but we also have to focus on getting to net zero, on having resilient public services and on ending child poverty. We need to balance all those objectives, and it would be foolhardy to say that those objectives do not sometimes come into conflict with one another.

The new deal for business was established to deliver more effective engagement with business on policy objectives. Having been the economy secretary through part of Covid, I was conscious that there was a risk of the relationship with business being very tense. In many cases, businesses had been shut down for months on end and their sales had fallen off a cliff. Some business owners had not taken wages for almost two years. There was constant questioning and querying of why the Government was taking the decisions that it was taking.

Off the back of that, we entered a cost of living crisis in which businesses were dealing with spiralling energy costs and higher costs in other areas, with consumers struggling to contribute to the same volume of sales.

Therefore, the relationship between business and the Government was particularly strained. Businesses saw the Government introducing various policies and legislation and were asking where they featured in conversations and consultations.

The point of the new deal for business was to reset the relationship, to ensure that there was systemic change internally in the Government so that it took account of the impact on business, and to ensure that implementation was done through partnership, with business and the Government working collaboratively and collectively.

That was the issue that the new deal for business sought to resolve, and you can see from the overarching outcomes how that work was captured. I am happy to go into more detail on any of that.

Convener, I assume that, if anybody else wants to come in, they will indicate and you will bring them in.

No, not at all, because we have responded. We have responded to the increase, and, by and large, consenting is no longer identified as the biggest concern. What came through our Monday conference on offshore wind, where I was delighted to sit alongside Michael Shanks, is that the sector’s biggest concern right now is the uncertainty on contract for difference allocations and the fact that the work on grid connections is too far in the future. All of us know that there is a need to respond, but we are very proud of having doubled the resource in the consenting unit without much fanfare. We have just done it. That shows a flexibility of response.

The point about the high street is a bit more challenging, because many different factors impact on that, and some of them are outwith our control. The rapid rise in online shopping, for example, has had an impact on our high streets. There is also the impact of Covid. Where we can respond is by rethinking high streets and what goes into supporting them. It is a bit more complicated.

I am at risk of continually hogging this. Dr Malik, do you have any ideas to share?

Yes, yet he is doing very well by the sound of it. There is a balance here, and the Government should not be, and need not be, deep in the weeds of every single business. As Dr Malik said, there are thousands of businesses out there, and many of them are doing extremely well. Often, when they get in touch, it is to acknowledge something that is not going well. When businesses are prospering—when they are succeeding, recruiting, employing and contributing to economic growth—perhaps the less involvement they have with Government, the better it is for them.

Wearing my investment hat, I would make the point that we are taking a different approach to inward investment and to high-growth businesses. There are several things that we are changing and have changed in the past few months. First, we are taking a far more professional approach to investor relations. Rather than waiting for a business to approach us as and when it needs Government support or intervention, we are taking a far more strategic and targeted approach to that relationship. I can share a little bit about how we are doing that, if it is of interest.

Secondly, we are being really clear about where in Scotland the biggest opportunities for growth are and where investment is required. Until recently, we did not have a pipeline of all the highest-growth private sector-led and public sector-led opportunities—in many cases, because the private sector deals with seeking investment and so on itself. There has been a shift on the investment side of things, and I imagine that that quote could be replicated for a number of other businesses that, frankly, are running their business and not necessarily reading up on every Government report that is published, probably with good reason.

I have not reached out to him, but I will happily reach out to him.

I confess to being surprised that it has taken until 11:23 for anyone to raise the subject of non-domestic rates. I commend Daniel Johnson for being the first to do so.

There is a sub-group on non-domestic rates, which has valued the opportunity to engage in a deeper way on many of the issues and to consider how the non-domestic rates system can best support business growth. Although we have made the decision that the new deal for business is coming to its natural conclusion, the sub-group on non-domestic rates will continue to meet and will, I hope, continue to be a forum.

The sub-group has delivered changes. For example, this might seem quite minor, but the deadline for lodging proposals on non-domestic rates valuations has been extended as a result of concerns being fed back. Dialogue and engagement that had not happened previously have taken place through the sub-group on non-domestic rates.

Short-life task teams have got into the weeds on very specific issues, including property improvement, promotion of reliefs, valuation transparency, information flows and the impact of reliefs. That has allowed really in-depth conversations to take place that would not normally happen when we discuss in general terms the changes that need to be made around non-domestic rates.

Daniel Johnson and I have had conversations on other specific changes. I remain very open to and interested in changing the methodology for hospitality businesses. The key is finding consensus on what that change should be. I have shared with Mr Johnson the UK Government’s proposed changes on non-domestic rates, whereby larger businesses will indefinitely supplement the reliefs that are provided to smaller businesses. As we cannot replicate those changes, it is particularly urgent that we look at what the alternative will be in Scotland.

On methodology, there remains an outstanding question on what could replace the current methodology. That is dependent on data.

Judith, do you have anything to add on the specifics of any of that? If not, do not worry.

One area in which I would like greater progress to be made—I imagine that Daniel Johnson will agree with me on this—is on the complexity of the technology landscape for local authorities’ non-domestic rates systems. That point is similar to the one that Jamie Halcro Johnston made earlier in relation to the tourism levy, some of the points about which we recognise. However, the process needs to be initiated by local authorities themselves if fundamental changes to the technology are to be made. The delivery of any changes to the digital systems, such as changes in the level of information that can be accessed through those systems, requires a joint view to be taken by all councils.

I have previously engaged with Revenue Scotland, which has an appetite for helping to support councils to take a far more streamlined approach to non-domestic rates. There are multiple different systems operating. If there was consensus among local authorities on the need to improve that technology, we would be willing to work with them. However, I must emphasise the fact that, although it is easy to ask Government for a number of changes, when we are talking about a local tax, the process needs to be initiated by local government.

I see that Daniel Johnson is looking at me sceptically.

I should have put an interest on the record at the beginning, as I have family members who operate a tourism business.

I do not accept that point about the legislation. I cannot remember precisely when it was, but I think that I came back into government halfway through the legislative process. In the responses to the consultation, there were a number of different calls. Some were very much in favour of a flat rate and some were very strongly in favour of a percentage rate. That proves the point that I shared earlier about the fact that the tourism industry is not homogenous. Some particularly small businesses were very hostile to a flat rate because, for them, it would have been a bigger percentage of the cost of a one-night stay.

The legislation was designed to try to make it as flexible as possible for councils. For example, there are a number of exemptions that can be included, and there are a number of different approaches and processes for collection. My view is that councils are now responsible for how they conduct the consultation, with VisitScotland input, and how they design a scheme that works for their local businesses. Although I am very open to feedback from businesses on how it operates, I stress that it is now a council responsibility. It was councils that wanted the enabling legislation, and they now have it. How they implement it matters, but it is ultimately their duty to engage with businesses on that point.

A review point is baked into the legislation. It is now Ivan McKee’s responsibility, and he is engaging at the moment as to whether there needs to be additional flexibility on the point about a flat rate. You will know that Highland Council was not in favour of a single flat rate, either; it wanted a tiered rate. There is complexity here, because different businesses and different councils wanted different approaches. The legislation tries to be as broad as possible. I strongly encourage councils to engage well with businesses and to design a scheme that mitigates any concerns that are raised.