Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely. Here is an example: doubling the resource in the energy consents unit was not necessarily—unless my colleagues are going to correct me—considered to be a top priority for the new deal for business, but it has emerged as one of the top requests by developers in a sector that is forecast to deliver high growth to the Scottish economy.

The point of the new deal for business was not to capture all the policy asks in one place and then track whether we could deliver on them. The point of the new deal was to deliver systemic change in the processes and the tests for all policy development.

Being able to double the resource in the energy consents unit and target a sub 12-month turnaround time for planning applications is an example of how that has been achieved by an area of Government that would not necessarily see itself as being in the business of economic development but would see itself in the business of planning, regulation and so on. That is what I meant.

The test of the new deal for business will be whether that culture change continues. I personally think that—perhaps I will just claim credit for this—in the past six months, the approach has been embedded dramatically in a number of different organisations. For example, on the investment stuff that I am doing, for the first time, we have a pipeline of all the private sector-led and public sector-led opportunities for growth and requirements for investment. We have not had that before.

You look like you are about to come in with a second question.

It is about more than that. At any point, we are grappling economically with different challenges. Some of those are unexpected, and some of them are expected but are happening more quickly than anticipated. Let us take the same example. The national strategy for economic transformation, which was published a couple of years ago, explicitly said that targeting new emerging markets was a big opportunity for the Government, and it explicitly talked about the energy transition. We then had ScotWind, in which the leasing round massively exceeded our original target. The Government agreed to that massive increase because it was such a huge opportunity. Government and its agencies, therefore, have to respond to what we were anticipating but at a much higher volume, and that is where doubling the resource and so on comes in.

Again, you look like you are about to come in with another question. I do not want to cut across you.

They are to a greater extent as a result of the new deal for business than perhaps was the case previously. Your example is about implementation of laudable policy. Wherever a policy originates from—and a laudable policy often originates in Parliament if there is consensus; such policy does not exclusively originate in the Government—our responsibility, I believe, irrespective of where we are in Government, is to bring into the conversation at an early stage those who will be most impacted and then to consider implementation of that laudable policy.

I gave you a list of different issues that the regulatory review group has been looking at. You could argue that none of those—legislation on non-surgical cosmetic procedures, heat in buildings and single-use cups—sits explicitly in the economy space, but those on the front line of implementation in those areas are largely in the business community. As with your pharmacy example, if they have to change their approach or their practices, or try to mitigate some of the impact, they need to be brought into the conversation much earlier.

We have trialled that with the new deal for business. On public health inequalities, for example, and some of the policy suggestions around health outcomes, alcohol, foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar and so on, rather than talking to business at the end of the process, we bring them in at the beginning to understand how a laudable policy aim can be implemented by those who will ultimately be tasked with that.

Your pharmacy example is brilliant because pharmacies are on the front line. They are the place where citizens interact with a policy change. It does not lead to the best outcomes if pharmacies are not brought in at the beginning and are left to implement at the end. The new deal for business has tried to change that—successfully, I think.

Yes. You believe everything else I say, though.

It is an on-going process. In terms of the change, the new deal for business has, first, made sure that the processes take into account the impact on the economy. Whether it is through the regulatory review group or the refreshed business impact assessments, there is a test that officials need to answer before they introduce anything. There is that process point.

The second thing is to get people thinking in a different way about implementation. We are doing through the Cabinet sub-group, which I have introduced. It is a part of Cabinet that is focused on economy and investment. That goes to the point that I shared with Kevin Stewart. Everybody is involved in the job of attracting investment or, sometimes, pushing investment away. We have had some useful conversations in that group—it is quite free flowing—among cabinet secretaries as they think through the impact that their decisions on transport, housing, social justice or health have on investment in the economy. That forum, starting at the top, takes into account not just whether a decision is right or wrong but what impact it has on the economy and investment. My hope is that that then filters down from those Cabinet-level conversations.

The third thing is the test of whether the approach is having an impact. I hear feedback on that pretty quickly. If businesses are up in arms about something—for example, if the pharmacy that Kevin Stewart mentioned is unhappy with something—that gets back to me pretty quickly and we realise that it has not worked in the way that it should have.

The caveat is that not all stakeholders will always agree with what Government does, irrespective of how Government does it. In some areas, you have to make binary choices about proceeding with a policy that may not be completely popular among one demographic. That will always be a challenge. The key there is to have no surprises, to explain the decision that we have taken and to look at any ways of mitigating that. That was certainly the case in the budget, where some parts were positively received and some were less positively received, but there was a reason behind those decisions—for example, it was about additional resources for something.

That is the approach. However, this is not simple and straightforward. Government is engaged in the business of trying to achieve multiple objectives, and sometimes we just need to be honest and own up to the fact that objectives sometimes come into conflict with one another, and you have to come down on one side or the other.

That is critical. It is probably the biggest question in terms of culture change, because cabinet secretaries can be on board and can see the opportunity but, ultimately, they are partly dependent on the advice that they receive. They get advice on process implementation, who is saying what, who is happy and who is not happy. The engagement needs to happen at official level, too.

Talking about officials, I will ask an official.

That is why I said that this is just the start. I totally recognise your point about the bold statement on culture change and why I probably did not say in my opening remarks that it is job done, tick, because—

That is a great question. We are talking about a cultural change, and sometimes that can be difficult to pin down. However, I have very specific examples of how the culture has changed.

First, we have earlier, more effective engagement with business on policy objectives—we bring people in at an earlier point in discussions. At one of your evidence sessions, there was an indication that there had been change in relation to last year’s programme for government and in the budget, for example. Business felt consulted at a much earlier stage and then could see tangible evidence of asks being reflected back in the budget and the programme for government.

Secondly, there were specific sub-groups. The non-domestic rates sub-group, for example, was brought in at a critical point in the parliamentary calendar so that we had an opportunity to hear back from it. The regulatory review sub-group provided specific advice to ministers and officials on a number of different issues, such as heat in buildings, minimum unit pricing, single-use cups and legislation on non-surgical cosmetic procedures, and a refreshed business and regulatory impact assessment and guidance were co-produced.

Those are just some of the different systemic and process ways in which there has been change. Ultimately, the test is whether there is a culture change across Government so that different parts of Government no longer work in silos.

The economy directorate has always understood that the business community, which is not homogeneous, is a key stakeholder. If you are working in health policy or environmental policy, you have a lot of stakeholders to take into account, and business may not be your first consideration. Through the new deal for business, we have changed things so that there is a means of bringing in business stakeholders at an earlier point.

For example, when I came back into government last summer, one of the first groups that I chaired was a group involving the new deal for business group, which heard from public health experts on improving health outcomes. I cannot recall that happening previously, but we did it to break down silos.

Those are some tangible examples of how process has changed to deliver a cultural change outcome.

I say very clearly, because I am in receipt of the same emails that I imagine Jamie Halcro Johnston is in receipt of, that it is entirely Highland Council’s choice as to whether to introduce a tourism levy or not. I have stressed that and emphasised it. There was extensive consultation when the enabling legislation went through the Scottish Parliament, but Highland Council is now running its own consultation. It is critical that the voice of business is taken into account, because we all know that the value of any such levy is the additionality for the experience of tourists.

My impression, which is based on the engagement that I have had with a number of businesses on a constituency level, is that most of them do not have an in-principle objection to the concept but they want their views to be taken into account in relation to how the council manages it. The City of Edinburgh Council is at a more advanced stage.

The amendments make very minor corrections that will ensure that references to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 follow the style of the act into which they are being inserted. That will ensure consistency and remove any possible ambiguity.

I move amendment 59.

Amendment 59 agreed to.

Amendment 60 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

After section 16

On amendments 33 and 34, I understand the importance of ensuring that the duties that we place on relevant public authorities strike the correct balance. Amendment 34, lodged by Emma Roddick, would achieve that. A duty to have regard to something is a commonly used formulation in law, and the removal of the reference to “desirability” in relation to having regard to Gaelic language and culture makes the duty more direct and, therefore, stronger, while still allowing the relevant public authorities flexibility and autonomy to consider what action they should take in their particular circumstances.

From our reading, the two-stage test that is set out in Ross Greer’s amendment 33 is less clear. I appreciate that that wording appears in the 2005 act, but that is in relation to the very different context of Bòrd na Gàidhlig giving advice and assistance to authorities. I am concerned that that test would be more complex for authorities to apply than the simple test of having regard to Gaelic language and culture, which Emma Roddick’s amendment 34 would achieve.

Therefore, I ask members to support amendment 34. On this occasion, I am not able to support amendment 33. [Interruption.]

Oh, sorry—I will keep going, as I need to turn to amendment 54, which relates to relevant public authorities that are to be included in the scope of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005. I should say that our support for amendment 54 is another example of our trying to support as many amendments as possible, either now or at stage 3.

The Scottish Government’s position is that Scottish Rail Holdings and Scottish Water are already included in the scope of the 2005 act by virtue of the use of the definition, “Scottish public authority”. We feel that it is unnecessary to expressly specify them and that to do so might create doubt and even a narrowing of the definition, by suggesting that bodies must be expressly mentioned to be subject to the act.

Colleges in Scotland are already classed as part of the public sector, and they have some functions to which the duties in the 2005 act, as amended by the bill, will apply. There was an assumption that universities would be covered by the 2005 act. They have a mix of public and private functions. Their private functions are obviously not the concern of the bill, but it is undoubtedly the case that public functions are carried out in the sector that should be exercised with an appreciation of the Gaelic language. Indeed, that is happening already. Just last week, the University of Edinburgh launched its refreshed Gaelic language plan, which is a great example of how universities, through their activities in running the internal corporate aspects of their institutions and in providing for their student populations, can act positively for Gaelic.