Chamber and committees

We need to apologise to both Claire Mack and Jane Wood. We could do entire sessions on house building and the need for renewables.

Tony, I was reflecting on what you were saying. I repeat ad infinitum the McKinsey mantra that, “If you can’t measure, you can’t manage,” so I agree with what you said. One thing strikes me, because it reminds me of what I thought when I was running my business. Jane Wood and Claire Mack run great organisations that are an important part of engagement, but sometimes politicians think that if they have engaged with the trade body, they have engaged with the sector. Does the Government, and politicians in the round, need to think about trying to understand individual businesses more? What would you like to see happen? You obviously do not want to meet a politician every day; you want to run your business—

At the beginning, you questioned whether the policies are in place to focus on investment in Scotland. I would be interested if you could follow that up.

I have some questions on a different topic, but I find the current thread of questioning interesting. The deputy convener summed it up quite well—it sounds as if the Government is starting to get it but is not there yet. Reflecting on what I have heard over the past 10 minutes or so, I think that you have said that engagement has got better and that some decisions that might be actively damaging to business are being avoided. However, that is not the same thing as having policies in place that promote a healthier economy and promote growth and investment—that is to say, policies that are actually for businesses. There is a difference there. We should surely be seeking not just to engage and have a good dialogue with business, but to put in place policies that are directly focused on improving the business context and business investment.

Is that a fair reflection of the conversation? Perhaps you can start, Sara, because your comments in this space have been most germane.

To lead into my follow-up question, it strikes me that, while the groups that we are discussing might look at things that are explicitly about business, they—and we—are not asking whether all policy is aligned with our economic policies. Again, we might look at whether the proposals on alcohol advertising were in line with our growth aspirations for the food and drink sector. Another example might be the Berwick Bank decision. We have a very ambitious target on renewables, but we are now approaching the two-year mark for the consenting decisions—which are meant to take a year—for what will be one of the most substantial contributions to meeting that target.

Is there too much of a focus in the regulatory review group on new regulations, rather than on asking whether all our regulation and policy making is aligned with our industrial objectives? Colin, perhaps you can answer first, and I will then open it up to the whole panel.

Does anyone else want to grasp the nettle of non-domestic rates?

In the interest of completeness, I note that the issue of non-domestic rates reform was highlighted to us before the meeting. Do you feel that there is an appetite to look at that? It is a bit of a perennial chestnut from the business community. I need to declare an interest, because I bear the scars of having gone through the appeals processes for revaluation. To me, it looked as though there was a very wide discrepancy between what I was asked to pay by the assessor and the rent that I was actually having to pay for my units. I think that the system is a bit dysfunctional.

Is there an appetite to look at reform of non-domestic rates? Is there active engagement about how we might review the system? I am looking at Lorna Slater, who is sitting to my left, and thinking about things such as a land value tax as an alternative to non-domestic rates. Is there an appetite to look at the fundamental change that the business sector wants to see?

Not to worry. I probably need to move on.

A key focus of the new deal for business was the regulatory review group. I wonder whether the witnesses feel that progress has been made there. I ask Colin Borland to comment first, as Sara Thiam answered the previous question.

Further to that, my understanding is that the exascale computer is still part of live discussions. I was discussing the issue just yesterday with the principal of the University of Edinburgh. I want to confirm whether that is the Deputy First Minister’s understanding. Is it also her understanding that that decision will be made in the spending review, which we expect in the summer?

To clarify, it was the Secretary of State for Scotland who said that the decision would be a feature of the spending review.

What you have just said relates to my final question, so I will ask that before you bring in your team to respond to my question about the formal metrics.

Do you view the growth deals as just another means of delivering projects, or do you view them as the principal means of delivering infrastructure, particularly regional infrastructure? If the latter, that has quite a big bearing on how we think about things such as the medium-term financial strategy and the spending review, which we have talked about. Are the deals the primary means of delivery, or are they just one means of delivery?