Chamber and committees

I have just one question. Quite a few of the witnesses who have appeared before this committee have indicated that they think that consumer behaviour has changed quite markedly under Covid. Do you have any way of estimating whether that change is likely to be permanent?

Are there implications for savings patterns as well?

I will focus my remarks on the most recent comments that have been made by the business community, which build on exactly what it told us five or six weeks ago, when we had our previous Covid debate in this chamber. Business is still very much of the view that, although minimising the Covid threat absolutely has to be the priority, especially with the dangerous new omicron variant, the second priority must be developing our ability to secure a strong economic recovery that is sustainable in not just in the short term but the years ahead. That economic growth is absolutely critical not just for jobs, investment and tax revenues, but to encourage the greater economic optimism that we all so desperately need.

What is the business community—whether that is the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry, the Scottish Retail Consortium or the Federation of Small Businesses—asking for as it faces up to the on-going pandemic, supply chain issues, the increased cost of living and national insurance increases? First and foremost, those organisations are very much talking about making their businesses secure for the future.

The FSB—of course, it is small business Saturday this weekend—is very clear that to complement the existing measures that have been agreed by this Parliament, we need a package of discrete measures to assist with the small business recovery. I have a great deal of sympathy with that, because small businesses are very much the bedrock of our economy and they have been at the heart of our local communities during the pandemic—I know that the Deputy First Minister recognises that in his constituency, and Richard Leonard referred to it in his remarks this afternoon. That is why the Scottish Chambers of Commerce has been so strong about the need to revitalise our towns and cities not just with short-term measures such as extending the business rates relief and the small business bonus scheme, but with longer-term measures, too.

The Scottish Government should be credited with showing some generosity in its approach over the past financial year, in that it permitted some business rates relief. I hope that that will be true in next week’s budget as well.

Business is keen to remind us that, although the short-term measures are helpful, they will not be nearly enough. The Chambers of Commerce and the CBI want to see reform of the non-domestic rates system and the planning system, and the FRC wants reform of the commercial property market. Of course, it is absolutely essential that Scotland is not at any competitive tax disadvantage with anywhere else, including England.

It is noticeable how much business is focusing on upskilling, training and building an effective digital infrastructure. We know that unemployment has not risen quite in the way that we were once expecting, and we also know that job vacancies are higher than expected, which clearly tells us that there are some mismatches on skills in the economy and perhaps a lack of flexibility in the labour force. It would be helpful if the Scottish Government could spell out exactly what it will do to address some of those labour issues as quickly as possible.

The critical issue is the provision of greater certainty and stability—I think that those are the words that Kate Forbes used—when it comes to economic policy making. We need a much more coherent and holistic approach to policy making, to ensure that Scotland remains fully competitive with other economies. People in business want a Scottish Government that fully engages with them, not one that just gives them a quick phone call to tell them that some new regulations will be coming out in a few days’ time. They want a Scottish Government that brings a clarity of purpose to business support and planning ahead, and a Government that provides clear supporting evidence to underpin the decisions that it is making, because those decisions are absolutely crucial if we are going to have public trust in the way forward from Covid. We know that there has been a great deal of confusion and contradiction in that regard at times, so clarity of purpose is vital.

Next week’s budget, of course, presents us with an opportunity. I look forward to responding to the budget statement and to the engagement process between stages 1 and 3 after Christmas.

The cabinet secretary will have exactly the same briefing that I have from the Federation of Small Businesses and she will know that one of the things that it asks for is that checks are made on the eligibility for some of the grants that are made to small businesses. Is that something that Scottish Government is considering?

That raises an interesting question about how appropriate it is to set national targets. If a Government has made commitments on specific targets—we have all been guilty of talking in terms of targets—does that take away from the ability to home in on other areas of measurement and improvement that might deliver aspects of what the Christie commission recommended?

The argument is really interesting. During our evidence session on 9 November, we discussed with Professor Mitchell and the Auditor General the question of trust. These days—this is not a party-political point—trust in politics is not easily found, yet the public want to have a level of trust in the people who deliver their public services, whether that is education, health, transport or whatever it might be. Politics is not in a good place at the moment—partly because of the Covid situation, which is obviously nobody’s fault at all—and it is hard to find the same degree of trust as we previously had in systems and, dare I say, in politicians.

At the core of the debate is the extent to which we can improve the level of trust if the lines of accountability are proven to be pretty watertight and if people understand why decisions have been made and what they can do to ensure that those decisions are the right ones for delivering their public services. Do we need to foster that debate?

I will ask questions about the answers that Mr Swinney just provided to the convener. I will build on a comment that Professor James Mitchell made at the committee’s meeting on 9 November. He was clear that there was a lot of good will across the political spectrum for the Christie commission but, 10 years on, we are still asking why it has not all come together. Stephen Boyle, the Auditor General, said in that evidence session that leadership in the public sector is in some cases not held sufficiently accountable for its decisions. Will you comment on that?

If those accountability mechanisms are in place, are they working sufficiently well? Do some processes of accountability need to be reformed?

One thing that struck me during the first wave of Covid was how magnificently well our hospitals responded to the intense pressure that was on them. I heard more than once that that was down to the fact that doctors and nurses were taking the front-line decisions about how the Covid wards had to be organised, rather than some of the people who are normally associated with the administration of health services. That is particularly relevant to the running of Scotland. To what extent do we need to move towards a system of accountability that is more in the hands of the people who run the front-line services, rather than those of the people who administer services?

At the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s meeting on 31 August, when I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy about the Government’s commitment to the A96 and the A9 and whether there had been any problem with that, given that the Greens and the SNP had entered a coalition, she said categorically that the Greens and the SNP being together in the Government would not affect either of those projects. Is that correct?