Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is why I said that this is just the start. I totally recognise your point about the bold statement on culture change and why I probably did not say in my opening remarks that it is job done, tick, because—

Yet the Diffley Partnership “Understanding Business” survey showed that around 48 per cent of 600 businesses surveyed said that they believe that the Scottish Government does understand their concerns. I take what the Fraser of Allander Institute reports as a reason to double down, work harder and be as open and as engaging as possible, but I also take into account the Diffley Partnership work and the improvement that Dr Malik outlined a moment ago.

We will keep focusing on the feedback that we get in all different forms. I assure anybody listening that we are nothing but accessible. I am accessible on a Friday morning in my constituency, with a surgery when businesses can drop in, and my diary shows that I am accessible in engaging extensively across different sectors. We are listening.

I think that what businesses often define as effective engagement is not just the listening and the accessibility; it is seeing their asks reflected in policy. I was encouraged by the feedback on the programme for government and the budget. We did not deliver everything that business wanted—we were open about that—but we did see some very positive commentary, particularly from the Scottish Retail Consortium on the programme for government, which acknowledged that businesses do not want surprises. There were no surprises. A number of the initiatives do not sit in the economy directorate but were, nonetheless, music to their ears.

Sorry—who said that?

Businesses’ number 1 issue was the cumulative impact of regulation that, at times, felt as though it was all coming at the same time. So, what have we done? We have established a regulatory review group. We now have a built-in process that looks at the potential regulation coming down the line and ensures that there is a means of understanding, internally in Government, the cumulative impact of policy and regulatory decisions on businesses. That is why there was positive commentary about the programme for government and the budget in terms of there being no additional regulations at a time when, as one business told us, there was a list of different regulations that businesses were trying to comply with all at the same time.

Generally, businesses are not anti-regulation. However, when there is a cumulative impact on top of the cost of living crisis and dealing with the aftermath of Covid, it is challenging. That is one example of how ministers can scrutinise the cross-portfolio regulatory landscape.

I invite Judith Young to come in.

I think that Judith Young wants to comment on that.

I say very clearly, because I am in receipt of the same emails that I imagine Jamie Halcro Johnston is in receipt of, that it is entirely Highland Council’s choice as to whether to introduce a tourism levy or not. I have stressed that and emphasised it. There was extensive consultation when the enabling legislation went through the Scottish Parliament, but Highland Council is now running its own consultation. It is critical that the voice of business is taken into account, because we all know that the value of any such levy is the additionality for the experience of tourists.

My impression, which is based on the engagement that I have had with a number of businesses on a constituency level, is that most of them do not have an in-principle objection to the concept but they want their views to be taken into account in relation to how the council manages it. The City of Edinburgh Council is at a more advanced stage.

Absolutely. Here is an example: doubling the resource in the energy consents unit was not necessarily—unless my colleagues are going to correct me—considered to be a top priority for the new deal for business, but it has emerged as one of the top requests by developers in a sector that is forecast to deliver high growth to the Scottish economy.

The point of the new deal for business was not to capture all the policy asks in one place and then track whether we could deliver on them. The point of the new deal was to deliver systemic change in the processes and the tests for all policy development.

Being able to double the resource in the energy consents unit and target a sub 12-month turnaround time for planning applications is an example of how that has been achieved by an area of Government that would not necessarily see itself as being in the business of economic development but would see itself in the business of planning, regulation and so on. That is what I meant.

The test of the new deal for business will be whether that culture change continues. I personally think that—perhaps I will just claim credit for this—in the past six months, the approach has been embedded dramatically in a number of different organisations. For example, on the investment stuff that I am doing, for the first time, we have a pipeline of all the private sector-led and public sector-led opportunities for growth and requirements for investment. We have not had that before.

You look like you are about to come in with a second question.

It is about more than that. At any point, we are grappling economically with different challenges. Some of those are unexpected, and some of them are expected but are happening more quickly than anticipated. Let us take the same example. The national strategy for economic transformation, which was published a couple of years ago, explicitly said that targeting new emerging markets was a big opportunity for the Government, and it explicitly talked about the energy transition. We then had ScotWind, in which the leasing round massively exceeded our original target. The Government agreed to that massive increase because it was such a huge opportunity. Government and its agencies, therefore, have to respond to what we were anticipating but at a much higher volume, and that is where doubling the resource and so on comes in.

Again, you look like you are about to come in with another question. I do not want to cut across you.

The amendments make very minor corrections that will ensure that references to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 follow the style of the act into which they are being inserted. That will ensure consistency and remove any possible ambiguity.

I move amendment 59.

Amendment 59 agreed to.

Amendment 60 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

After section 16

On amendments 33 and 34, I understand the importance of ensuring that the duties that we place on relevant public authorities strike the correct balance. Amendment 34, lodged by Emma Roddick, would achieve that. A duty to have regard to something is a commonly used formulation in law, and the removal of the reference to “desirability” in relation to having regard to Gaelic language and culture makes the duty more direct and, therefore, stronger, while still allowing the relevant public authorities flexibility and autonomy to consider what action they should take in their particular circumstances.

From our reading, the two-stage test that is set out in Ross Greer’s amendment 33 is less clear. I appreciate that that wording appears in the 2005 act, but that is in relation to the very different context of Bòrd na Gàidhlig giving advice and assistance to authorities. I am concerned that that test would be more complex for authorities to apply than the simple test of having regard to Gaelic language and culture, which Emma Roddick’s amendment 34 would achieve.

Therefore, I ask members to support amendment 34. On this occasion, I am not able to support amendment 33. [Interruption.]

Oh, sorry—I will keep going, as I need to turn to amendment 54, which relates to relevant public authorities that are to be included in the scope of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005. I should say that our support for amendment 54 is another example of our trying to support as many amendments as possible, either now or at stage 3.

The Scottish Government’s position is that Scottish Rail Holdings and Scottish Water are already included in the scope of the 2005 act by virtue of the use of the definition, “Scottish public authority”. We feel that it is unnecessary to expressly specify them and that to do so might create doubt and even a narrowing of the definition, by suggesting that bodies must be expressly mentioned to be subject to the act.

Colleges in Scotland are already classed as part of the public sector, and they have some functions to which the duties in the 2005 act, as amended by the bill, will apply. There was an assumption that universities would be covered by the 2005 act. They have a mix of public and private functions. Their private functions are obviously not the concern of the bill, but it is undoubtedly the case that public functions are carried out in the sector that should be exercised with an appreciation of the Gaelic language. Indeed, that is happening already. Just last week, the University of Edinburgh launched its refreshed Gaelic language plan, which is a great example of how universities, through their activities in running the internal corporate aspects of their institutions and in providing for their student populations, can act positively for Gaelic.