Chamber and committees

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?

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.

Thank you.

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 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?

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?

So, ban acronyms; ban PowerPoint. Got it. And with that, I will finish my question.