���˿���

I confess to being surprised that it has taken until 11:23 for anyone to raise the subject of non-domestic rates. I commend Daniel Johnson for being the first to do so.

There is a sub-group on non-domestic rates, which has valued the opportunity to engage in a deeper way on many of the issues and to consider how the non-domestic rates system can best support business growth. Although we have made the decision that the new deal for business is coming to its natural conclusion, the sub-group on non-domestic rates will continue to meet and will, I hope, continue to be a forum.

The sub-group has delivered changes. For example, this might seem quite minor, but the deadline for lodging proposals on non-domestic rates valuations has been extended as a result of concerns being fed back. Dialogue and engagement that had not happened previously have taken place through the sub-group on non-domestic rates.

Short-life task teams have got into the weeds on very specific issues, including property improvement, promotion of reliefs, valuation transparency, information flows and the impact of reliefs. That has allowed really in-depth conversations to take place that would not normally happen when we discuss in general terms the changes that need to be made around non-domestic rates.

Daniel Johnson and I have had conversations on other specific changes. I remain very open to and interested in changing the methodology for hospitality businesses. The key is finding consensus on what that change should be. I have shared with Mr Johnson the UK Government’s proposed changes on non-domestic rates, whereby larger businesses will indefinitely supplement the reliefs that are provided to smaller businesses. As we cannot replicate those changes, it is particularly urgent that we look at what the alternative will be in Scotland.

On methodology, there remains an outstanding question on what could replace the current methodology. That is dependent on data.

Judith, do you have anything to add on the specifics of any of that? If not, do not worry.

One area in which I would like greater progress to be made—I imagine that Daniel Johnson will agree with me on this—is on the complexity of the technology landscape for local authorities’ non-domestic rates systems. That point is similar to the one that Jamie Halcro Johnston made earlier in relation to the tourism levy, some of the points about which we recognise. However, the process needs to be initiated by local authorities themselves if fundamental changes to the technology are to be made. The delivery of any changes to the digital systems, such as changes in the level of information that can be accessed through those systems, requires a joint view to be taken by all councils.

I have previously engaged with Revenue Scotland, which has an appetite for helping to support councils to take a far more streamlined approach to non-domestic rates. There are multiple different systems operating. If there was consensus among local authorities on the need to improve that technology, we would be willing to work with them. However, I must emphasise the fact that, although it is easy to ask Government for a number of changes, when we are talking about a local tax, the process needs to be initiated by local government.

I see that Daniel Johnson is looking at me sceptically.

Okay. The point is we have to be flexible, which is perhaps one of the things that has not been raised in this committee session so far. We have to be flexible. The processes need to be able to adapt and flex in response to new issues. We were not anticipating an increase in ENICs to be such a massive issue, and businesses are scrambling to respond. The agriculture sector did not expect various changes to come through, and it is scrambling to respond. Beyond our shores, we might not have expected Russia to invade Ukraine three years ago and what that would mean. My point is that our processes need to be flexible enough to respond, which is why the new deal for business was not about specific policies; it was about processes.

My confusion about the question is that the example that I have given you demonstrates where we have done it well. Recognising the volume of planning and consenting applications, we doubled the resource. We are not still talking here about the fact that that resource still needs to be doubled; I am here with a completed action—it has been doubled.

Yes. Do you want details of that?

The point that you are making is close to my heart. How do we ensure that any of the systemic and cultural changes that have happened in Government do not remain in Government? All the various public sector arms also need to appreciate and recognise what we have tried to achieve through the new deal for business. There needs to be an understanding that all parts of the public sector are also in the business of economic development.

When I came back into government last summer, I realised something. I will take energy transition as an example—it is a completely different sector, but it is, I know, an area that is close to Mr Stewart’s heart. A lot of public bodies do not see themselves as part of the energy transition, but they could make or break it. Marine Scotland, the Crown Estate, the various local authorities that have responsibility over planning, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, NatureScot and so on are all key.

This could also be applied to your pharmacy point, Mr Stewart, but organisations and public sector bodies have a duty to protect data according to the law, and to protect citizens and patients. At the same time, we have to ensure that organisations and bodies can operate as efficiently and effectively as possible. Pharmacies are a good example, because they are semi-autonomous and, in many cases, independent. If you were to introduce regulation and bureaucracy that led to them all shutting down, that would be providing the patient with a poor service at the end of the day. It is about finding that fine line in implementing laudable policy in a way that does not completely inhibit an autonomous, independent organisation such as a pharmacy from working.

That is where we are trying to create the culture change. Often, the issue is with the implementation rather than the core policy itself. We all know the various regulations and legislation that underpin data sharing, but there is a lot of freedom there, too, to put the patient at the heart of systems and to create systems that operate around the patient and enable greater data sharing.

Separate work is going on in Government. Neil Gray and I have co-chaired a number of groups involving economy and health to try to lead to some of that culture change, but I will not pretend that it is not a work in progress.

Yes, but, fundamentally, we deceive ourselves if we do not say that certain policies that are implemented for particular outcomes will not be popular in certain sectors. I do not think that any of us is saying that we expect every policy to be universally welcomed by every citizen in Scotland. That just cannot be the case.

The aim of the new deal for business is to bring business in at the beginning, to ensure that implementation is as streamlined and as straightforward as possible. That is very different from saying that every policy will be universally welcomed, especially when we are trying to achieve multiple different aims, as we are through MUP. MUP aims to reduce alcohol dependency, poor health outcomes from alcohol misuse and so on. I think that businesses are largely on board with those policy objectives, but we need to make sure that the implementation has their input.

I am sure that Dr Malik will have some thoughts to add, but I absolutely agree with that point about mainstreaming those models rather than their being an add-on. I was not here when the membership of the new deal was determined or invited, so I am not sure what the thinking was at that point as to who to involve and who not to involve. My colleagues may have thoughts on that. However, I agree with the point about mainstreaming.

As I have reiterated a few times this morning, we also need to reject the notion that the business community is homogenous and has the same views on everything. That is not the case. Business owners and workers of different kinds are citizens with lots of views on the various policies that the Government is engaged with, and we engage with them as citizens and take their views into account irrespective of their roles in business. Business is not a homogenous whole. We need to have the means to allow feedback, input and consultation and we then need to come to a conclusion that weighs all of that up, including the input from those alternative business models.

Dr Malik, do you have any thoughts on that?

It is on my agenda, because skills are very high on my agenda. We take a different approach to the apprenticeship levy here, and I would argue that businesses do see the benefit of it. They may not see the input/output equation in the same way as businesses might see it in an English context, but the funding is clearly reinvested in apprenticeships of different types—foundation apprenticeships and graduate apprenticeships—and in different skills.

Right now, we have a huge opportunity to look at the whole skills landscape and understand how it is meeting our growth objectives. We have a really good problem at the moment because we have high growth in particular sectors. We have massive potential growth in aerospace, in renewables and in other sectors. If I am engaging with a developer right now, they are saying that the scale of potential construction across Scotland makes them question whether they will be able to access the skills that they need. In other words, there is a lot of growth happening.

Graeme Dey is very involved in the conversations that we are having, and we have done specific things on the side, such as allocating £3.5 million for offshore wind. I have been working with advanced manufacturing, and we are contributing specific funding for a skills effort there. So, there are things that we are doing on the side of the general skills landscape.

Graeme Dey is keeping all of this under review, and I know that a different approach is being taken to the apprenticeship levy here, but I would argue that the benefit is still there; it is just that a business cannot see output leading to input individually.

I am not arguing about whether businesses are happy with it. My point is that the legislation is enabling legislation and there is now a duty on councils to consult well. I get a little bit sceptical when colleagues demand that central Government does not interfere with local authority decisions but then, when they are not comfortable with the way that things are going with local authorities, they come back to central Government and say, “You must change this”, or, “You must put a stop to this”.