Chamber and committees

I will rephrase my question—I just need to remind myself what my train of thought was. Claire Mack, you made a very important point about broad alignment. Sometimes, we view the economy within a portfolio and a silo, but the industry has touch points—in your sector there is the 50GW target and the net zero target for 2050 in the UK, and a different date in Scotland. However, we are still awaiting decisions on projects such as Berwick Bank, which is now at the two-year mark. Do you think that we are taking seriously the alignment that we need, with regard not only to regulations but decision making processes, to meet the objectives and targets that we have set out collectively with industry broadly and your sector in particular?

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—

Terrific. Thank you very much.

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.

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.

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?

That is an interesting and helpful set of observations. We could hold a whole evidence session on that issue.

At the beginning of the session, you described growth deals as being primarily about delivering economic growth. However, listening to the evidence, I have found it interesting that the benefits are less about gross value added and more about efficiency of working and collaboration. Is that the correct assessment? Is there a way of measuring the value of what they have delivered, or is it just a case of the deals making it easier to do the work? Do you have a formal set of metrics for the more mature deals, for example, and can you demonstrate the GVA or other economic value that would not be there if those deals did not exist?