Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Thank you.

I have a couple of broad questions. I ask the forgiveness of my committee colleagues who have been through the first iteration of regulations, because I am slightly late to the party.

The substance of the regulations is about the fairness principle—it is about the balance between the landlord and tenant. As you have been looking at how this will operate, what contexts have been taken into consideration, given that there can be a broad range of different arrangements in a commercial lease situation, including retail? When adjudicating on the basis of fairness, will the adjudicator be looking purely at the pub industry, or taking a broader range of contexts into consideration?

We are all aware of the current state of pubs in particular within the hospitality industry, and the decline in their number. I am sure that we are all aware of pubs that have closed in our constituencies and regions. Indeed, a tenant very close to me has just given up his lease in what one would imagine would be a very successful pub. In relation to the adjudicator’s work within the overall framework for the legislation, will there be explicit consideration of the health of pubs, or will there just be consideration of the broader context?

I will attempt to put one specific question to each of you. We will see how we go. However, that is already breaking my promise to my colleagues that I would ask only two to three questions. I will put that down to my bad maths.

First, I will ask Jane Wood and Claire Mack about regulation. There is a regulatory review group. I know that neither of you sits on that group, but regulation is clearly often where the rubber hits the road with Government policy. Have you seen any impact, benefit or improvement from that effort? What more do you think could be done?

Those points are excellent. I was just turning to the convener to say that perhaps we should end the committee session there. If there is one message that we should all be listening to, it is that one.

Nathalie, I will come to you. You made the good point that business should try to understand precisely where decisions are being made. That said, I would say that the onus is more on us. You talked about the pattern of engagement and how it started off with businesses coming to the new deal for business and the industry leadership groups. Are we making it too difficult to engage? Do we need to rethink that? Certainly, when I was running my business, I would not have had the time to come along once a month, or even once a quarter, to essentially give a day to meetings. Do we need a short, sharp, practical way to better engage with more businesses?