Chamber and committees

On the questions that were asked earlier, you spoke about the process of your appointment and about having 30 years—decades—of experience in business. Would you have employed someone without having a formal interview process?

We have talked about matters such as the work that is done by the Scottish National Investment Bank. However, how important in encouraging entrepreneurs is the business support that is provided by regional enterprise bodies such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise and South of Scotland Enterprise? Support can be given in many areas, but how important are those bodies? What do you see as being their role in the future?

You have talked about confidence. Scotland has a great entrepreneurial past; I am from the northern isles, and I think that we still consider ourselves as entrepreneurs, with companies such as Kyloe Partners in Kirkwall. On the point that you have made to Maggie Chapman, it is vital, as you said, that we do not just focus on the central belt, the north-east or areas that perhaps have traditional bases.

What do you see as the barriers to your delivering an entrepreneurship agenda across the whole of Scotland and, in particular, in remote areas?

Good morning, witnesses. I will come on to non-domestic rates in a moment. What one thing would you have liked to have seen in the budget that was not there? We have mentioned hospitality and tourism, which are two areas with particular pressures. In relation to upcoming Government regulations, projects or policies, whether that be short-term lets, the deposit return scheme or anything such as that, are there any areas of particular concern about new barriers or burdens that are coming up? I go to Stacey Dingwall first on that question.

Fergus Mutch, I understand that you are back with us. I would like to put that question to you. Did you hear it?

Clare Reid, do you want to come in?

I turn to the re-evaluation of non-domestic rates. This question is for Fergus Mutch and then for Stacey Dingwall. What are your thoughts or concerns about that re-evaluation? Did the budget go far enough? Has it allayed any fears?

What will be the likely increase in the number of people who decide to go down the route of MAP bankruptcy as a result of the removal of the minimum debt threshold? Do you have any expectations as to how that number might increase and how that might impact debt arrangement scheme agreements and the choice between that and making an application for bankruptcy? Has there been any analysis of that?

Fergus Mutch, do you want to answer that question as well?

There is no sound from Fergus. We will move on to Caroline Currie.

The fee going up from £300 to £750 is a 150 per cent increase, which is quite large. You talk about the impact, but, given that the thresholds for who can access minimal asset process bankruptcy are being reduced, that will put a considerable extra burden on creditors who are already likely to lose money—after all, as you rightly say, a large number of cases do not result in money coming back. How do you justify that, given that it will be a huge extra burden on creditors when there is potential for a large increase in the number of people going into MAP bankruptcy?