Seòmar agus comataidhean

The point that you are making is close to my heart. How do we ensure that any of the systemic and cultural changes that have happened in Government do not remain in Government? All the various public sector arms also need to appreciate and recognise what we have tried to achieve through the new deal for business. There needs to be an understanding that all parts of the public sector are also in the business of economic development.

When I came back into government last summer, I realised something. I will take energy transition as an example—it is a completely different sector, but it is, I know, an area that is close to Mr Stewart’s heart. A lot of public bodies do not see themselves as part of the energy transition, but they could make or break it. Marine Scotland, the Crown Estate, the various local authorities that have responsibility over planning, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, NatureScot and so on are all key.

This could also be applied to your pharmacy point, Mr Stewart, but organisations and public sector bodies have a duty to protect data according to the law, and to protect citizens and patients. At the same time, we have to ensure that organisations and bodies can operate as efficiently and effectively as possible. Pharmacies are a good example, because they are semi-autonomous and, in many cases, independent. If you were to introduce regulation and bureaucracy that led to them all shutting down, that would be providing the patient with a poor service at the end of the day. It is about finding that fine line in implementing laudable policy in a way that does not completely inhibit an autonomous, independent organisation such as a pharmacy from working.

That is where we are trying to create the culture change. Often, the issue is with the implementation rather than the core policy itself. We all know the various regulations and legislation that underpin data sharing, but there is a lot of freedom there, too, to put the patient at the heart of systems and to create systems that operate around the patient and enable greater data sharing.

Separate work is going on in Government. Neil Gray and I have co-chaired a number of groups involving economy and health to try to lead to some of that culture change, but I will not pretend that it is not a work in progress.

I am not arguing about whether businesses are happy with it. My point is that the legislation is enabling legislation and there is now a duty on councils to consult well. I get a little bit sceptical when colleagues demand that central Government does not interfere with local authority decisions but then, when they are not comfortable with the way that things are going with local authorities, they come back to central Government and say, “You must change this”, or, “You must put a stop to this”.

The legislation is very broad and it allows for a number of flexibilities and exemptions that businesses are calling for. It will be the decision of local authorities as to how they design a scheme that works. There is a lot of flexibility in there. I am very alive to the fact that different local authorities and different business groups asked for different things. Some asked for a percentage, some asked for tiered rates and some asked for a flat rate. There were also other ways. Ultimately, we needed to take that into account and design a scheme that would work for the most people.

Ivan McKee is currently engaging with tourism businesses on whether anything else could be done to the legislation to make it even more flexible. There is an openness to engaging with the tourism industry right now on whether anything further could be done on the legislation. There will be a challenge if it requires primary legislation, but there is an openness there.

I go back to the consultation responses and the fact that there was a broad range of views on whether the levy should be a percentage or not, particularly as small businesses felt that a flat rate would be a disproportionate percentage of their nightly rate. That is why having as much flexibility as possible in the enabling legislation is important, but I stress that it will be for local authorities to determine whether to introduce a tourism levy and to design one that takes into account the strong feedback from businesses in the Highlands. I am very conscious that that feedback has been very strong.

I am interested in hearing Dr Malik’s thoughts on that. By and large, however, my experience of Scottish businesses is that they want to do the right thing. They see themselves as critical to the local economy, but they are very interested in how they do their business and not just in what they do. Perhaps the difference is that, in Parliament or in the public sector, we have a tendency to use terms to define a lot of things that businesses, by and large, want to do themselves. An example is single-use cups. I am very conscious that a lot of coffee shops have already made decisions to try to contribute to environmental sustainability irrespective of legislative changes. Irrespective of how people define the work that they do and the duties that you outlined, businesses want to do the right thing.

Yet the Diffley Partnership “Understanding Business” survey showed that around 48 per cent of 600 businesses surveyed said that they believe that the Scottish Government does understand their concerns. I take what the Fraser of Allander Institute reports as a reason to double down, work harder and be as open and as engaging as possible, but I also take into account the Diffley Partnership work and the improvement that Dr Malik outlined a moment ago.

We will keep focusing on the feedback that we get in all different forms. I assure anybody listening that we are nothing but accessible. I am accessible on a Friday morning in my constituency, with a surgery when businesses can drop in, and my diary shows that I am accessible in engaging extensively across different sectors. We are listening.

I think that what businesses often define as effective engagement is not just the listening and the accessibility; it is seeing their asks reflected in policy. I was encouraged by the feedback on the programme for government and the budget. We did not deliver everything that business wanted—we were open about that—but we did see some very positive commentary, particularly from the Scottish Retail Consortium on the programme for government, which acknowledged that businesses do not want surprises. There were no surprises. A number of the initiatives do not sit in the economy directorate but were, nonetheless, music to their ears.

Sorry—who said that?

Businesses’ number 1 issue was the cumulative impact of regulation that, at times, felt as though it was all coming at the same time. So, what have we done? We have established a regulatory review group. We now have a built-in process that looks at the potential regulation coming down the line and ensures that there is a means of understanding, internally in Government, the cumulative impact of policy and regulatory decisions on businesses. That is why there was positive commentary about the programme for government and the budget in terms of there being no additional regulations at a time when, as one business told us, there was a list of different regulations that businesses were trying to comply with all at the same time.

Generally, businesses are not anti-regulation. However, when there is a cumulative impact on top of the cost of living crisis and dealing with the aftermath of Covid, it is challenging. That is one example of how ministers can scrutinise the cross-portfolio regulatory landscape.

I invite Judith Young to come in.

I think that Judith Young wants to comment on that.

I constantly ask that kind of question, because I often hear it said that the business community thinks X, Y or Z, but that completely fails to recognise that there can be disagreement among our wonderful businesses on different things. With subject area policies, some businesses might benefit from a policy change and some might not. Therefore, getting a fresh perspective really matters. Trade associations and organisations often speak on behalf of a group of businesses, but even they recognise that issue. For example, by its nature, the Federation of Small Businesses represents lots of small businesses in different sectors, which means that there are different views on different things.

Bringing in a fresh perspective is important. That is why I do not believe in continuing with particular groups indefinitely, because you want to bring in perspective. It is also why I strongly believe in engaging with businesses on a one-to-one basis. During Covid, I remember inviting officials to engage with businesses that had approached me and that bucked the trend—they were saying a different thing that was not part of the norm. We heard particular messages and then we would engage with small businesses that were saying something totally different. We engaged with them one to one rather than always viewing them as a group.

I am aware that many have said that Tony Rodgers—if I have remembered his name correctly—had a fresh perspective. I am happy to engage with him and others like him on their solutions and suggestions.

Thank you very much, convener. I thank the committee for providing the opportunity to discuss the new deal for business programme.

Thriving businesses are key to Scotland’s prosperity, and their success is critical to delivering the Government’s objectives. We are an unashamedly pro-growth Administration that is committed to working with business. Over the past 24 months, the new deal for business programme, which was designed to enhance the relationship between business and the Government, has been front and centre of our approach, and I am proud of what has been achieved collectively.

Before I go any further, I put on the record my huge and sincere thanks to Poonam Malik for her role as co-chair of the new deal for business group and for her commitment in providing her time and thoughts in co-chairing the group. I know how much parliamentarians value the input of business leaders, so we owe Poonam and many others like her a great debt of gratitude. I hope that that does not embarrass her too much while she is on camera.

Over the past few years, we have built good, strong relationships between business and the Government that recognise that Government actions and policies exist for a reason but that those actions have an impact on business. We need to understand the impacts of Government choices on businesses and work in partnership with them to minimise or mitigate those impacts.

The new deal for business programme was designed to kick-start systemic change and, although it was time limited, we always accepted that fully realising the change that we all want would take longer. Delivering the “New Deal for Business Group Implementation Plan”—our road map—for the past 18 months has fundamentally altered for the better how the Government engages with business. I am pleased that we have seen real change in the culture of Government, improved relationships with the business community, new tools and processes that support evidence-based policy development and better outcomes for all, and genuine enthusiasm and a new willingness to work together. I was heartened to hear, in the committee’s earlier evidence sessions, a clear acknowledgement that the desired change in culture across the Scottish Government is already happening.

I am delighted by those tangible improvements, which will be set out in more detail in the new deal for business group’s final report, which is to be published next month. However, I am not complacent. This is just the start, and I look forward to continuing to improve how we work with business and to building on the momentum through the means that are available to us.

Inevitably, there will always be things on which business and the Government do not agree, just as there are differing views within the business community. However, we see the successful conclusion of the new deal for business programme as an opportunity to double down even more strongly on how we work hand in glove with business. Together, we can deliver successful outcomes, minimise adverse impacts and maximise the opportunities for businesses to contribute to creating a fair, green and growing economy as the new normal.

I am very happy to take questions.