Official Report 379KB pdf
Non-Domestic Rates (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 (SSI 2026/135)
Good morning, and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2026 of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. I remind members to ensure that their devices are on silent. We are joined online by Fulton MacGregor, and we have received apologies from Mark Griffin.
Our first and only item of business today is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument. It is a negative instrument and, as such, has been laid after it was made. It is subject to annulment by resolution of the Parliament for a period of 40 days beginning on the day that it was laid. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the instrument at its meeting this morning, and the clerk to that committee has confirmed that it agreed to draw Parliament’s attention to the instrument on reporting ground (j), for a failure to lay the instrument in accordance with section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. An explanation as to why that happened was provided by the Scottish Government and is included in our papers.
Do members have any comments on the instrument?
I wish to make a couple of comments on it. I do not believe that anyone will not welcome the changes that have been made, but I am sure that, for many businesses, the journey to get to this point has been pretty torrid. As we know, the measure is a temporary one, so we need to hear from businesses directly. As the committee has not heard from them directly on the issue, I believe that we should seek to do so.
I am conscious that we have only one more potential day on which to have a meeting in this session of Parliament but, given how important the issue of non-domestic rates has been for the business community, the committee should consider inviting businesses in next week to give evidence on the matter.
Does anyone else want to comment?
I support Meghan Gallacher’s comments. At the end of this session of Parliament, there is an opportunity for us to tidy up the issue, if we need to. We have that option, so I support that suggestion.
I support what Meghan Gallacher and Alexander Stewart have said. I just add that, given the tight timescale involved, if the committee ends up agreeing to the suggestion, when we write to businesses we should also allow them to write back to us with their views, as well as giving them the option to come in next week. The timing might not be suitable for everybody.
There is a suggestion that we invite people to come in, but that they can also write to us. Are members content to delegate responsibility to me to finalise a list of witnesses for next week and to write to them?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our business for today.
Meeting closed at 11:27.
Previous
Attendance