Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

It sounds as though you are saying that we should claw back the college funding mechanism, which is based on credits—I will not go down that rabbit hole with the committee this morning—and use a model that seeks to leverage private sector investment. That would require redirecting the money that is put into the college credit system. Is that what you are advocating?

That is a big uncertainty when running an organisation, is it not?

I will move on to my questions on scale and pace, which in a sense follow on from what Jamie Halcro Johnston asked about. You said that, a year ago, you were a bit frustrated, but we now have the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill. To reflect on the process a little, it is two years since you reported and three years since you were asked to do the review, and it all stemmed from an Audit Scotland report in 2021. Therefore, we will probably be five years on from that report before we see legislation being enacted and progressing, and it is only on the structure. Are you confident that we are moving at sufficient pace to deliver change?

I am amused by that last comment, given some of our discussions about whether we should call them SCQF qualifications or highers. It is a good point.

I want to take you back to your proposal that we merge the funding streams, so that the funding is all in one place, to stop the either/or. We all understand the logic, but is there not a danger that we have been down that path before? The Scottish Funding Council was created through a merger of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and the Scottish Further Education Funding Council, yet, when we look at how the funding streams work, that merger did not produce the integration that was hoped for. Is there not a danger that we are pursuing structural change that will not actually deliver that? That way of doing things has been tried before and it did not work.

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?