Official Report 973KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19890, in the name of Graeme Dey, on the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill: emergency bill motion. I remind members that, as per rule 11.3.1(h) of standing orders, the question on the motion will be put immediately after the debate. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button. I call the minister, Graeme Dey, to speak to and move the motion.
16:31
In 2020, the Scottish Parliament voted to devolve empty property relief to local authorities to provide greater local fiscal empowerment to councils. That came into force on 1 April 2023. However, it was recently identified that the Government amendment to the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill in December 2019, which repealed legislation from 1966 to give effect to that, contained an error.
The minister said that the error was “recently identified”. Can he tell us how recently?
I am more than happy to do that. In August—
August?
If the member would allow me to explain—
Minister, please resume your seat for a second.
We are not proceeding like this. We are going to hear the person who has the floor, and then we are going to call the next person, and everybody else will listen to them with courtesy and respect.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
As I said, in August of this year, a query was raised with the Scottish Government. That was investigated and, in mid-September, it was identified that there was indeed an issue. Since then, Scottish Government officials have worked at pace to develop the proposed remedial legislation. Once that was finalised and completed internally, the bill was introduced to Parliament at the soonest opportunity, with business managers informed last Thursday, ahead of publication on Monday. I explain to Mr Ross that, under parliamentary process, that is quite a rapid exercise.
I do not think that it is rapid. People outside this building would not think that a Government finding out about a major flaw in its own legislation in the summer and then bringing emergency legislation in the last week of November is rapid. How would the Government view amendments to the bill, if it proceeds as emergency legislation, to ensure that the Government publishes all evidence—all details and all written and email communications—about the bill, so that we can see that it was treated as an emergency and has not been added in the week of the United Kingdom Government budget to try to hide it among other stories?
This is a serious matter. It would be a matter of regret for the Parliament to have the process clouded by conspiracy theories of the type that Mr Ross is seeking to advance.
The amendment in 2019 did not indubitably have the intended legal effect, and it appears that there has been no certain legal basis to charge rates on unoccupied non-domestic properties since that date. The bill seeks to correct that legislative error, give effect to the original policy intent and bring matters into line with the position as understood by local authorities and ratepayers.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Will the minister give way?
I will give way one final time, to Mr Simpson—my apologies, Mr Hoy.
Can the minister say who raised the query with the Scottish Government?
I am not in possession of the exact detail. What I can say is that a local authority raised the query with the Scottish Government. That is the detail that I can offer the member at the moment. I hope that that is of some help to him.
The process that we are following will ensure that there is a clear and certain legal basis for local authorities to collect non-domestic rates from the owners of unoccupied properties. It will bring the statute book into line with the position as understood by local authorities and ratepayers, as applied by local authorities and as voted on by the Parliament in 2019. Without this bill, local authorities might decide that the rates that have been paid by owners of unoccupied properties since 1 April 2023 need to be refunded and that rates can no longer be collected on unoccupied properties in future.
The bill seeks to protect revenue that is already collected in line with the Scottish Parliament vote and in subsequent budget bills. If the bill is not passed, those who paid rates on unoccupied properties will likely receive an unexpected and unjustified refund of rates paid since 1 April 2023. That could require cuts to public spending and a significant future rates increase to make up for that loss. The sums at stake would fall to the Scottish Government and would be estimated at more than £100 million a year if local authorities decided that they had to repay the rates collected on those properties and cease future collection.
There will be no change to rates bills as a result of this legislation, and if the bill passes, it will not introduce any additional new costs to businesses or individuals compared with the Scottish Parliament’s original intended policy.
I therefore seek the chamber’s support today for the bill to be taken as an emergency piece of primary legislation that is subject to that support. Stage 1 would take place tomorrow afternoon, and stages 2 and 3 would take place on Thursday afternoon.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill be treated as an Emergency Bill.
16:36
The Government is asking us to set aside concerns about transparency, legitimacy and competence, and we should not be prepared to do so when such a significant sum of public money is in play.
I have been an MSP for just over four years, but I have been a political journalist since 1996. I have seen my fair share of Scottish National Party incompetence, but this latest fiasco possibly tops it all. Let us explain to the paying public exactly what nationalist ministers are asking us to rush through today under this emergency procedure. In 2020, the SNP Government, backed by the Labour Party, passed legislation to reform business rates. At the time, we said that it would lead to an increased tax burden for businesses, and we were right. However, it turns out that the legislation was even more shoddy than the SNP minister who introduced the bill at the time. That minister was the disgraced Derek Mackay, the same minister who botched the award of the contract for the two ferries.
The bill then fell to Kate Forbes, who completed it in its final stages after Mr Mackay left the Government. The bill was meant to allow SNP ministers to levy business rates on companies that owned unoccupied properties, even if there was a legitimate reason for the property lying empty, such as the building not being fit for purpose or, as is increasingly the case in areas such as Aberdeen, because the loss of jobs in sectors such as oil and gas means that nobody is left to fill the offices and the firms are falling into administration. What ministers did not realise at the time—despite the ever-increasing numbers of civil servants and the army of bureaucrats that support them—was that the legislation was incompetently drafted. It was deficient, like much of what this Government does.
Would the member accept that he is somewhat overegging this? Everyone makes slight administrative mistakes, and this is not a major issue.
Mr Mason might have left the party, but he is still an apologist for the Administration. We are talking about £400 million being taken from struggling businesses in order to help to fill the SNP’s coffers.
We have to be aware that there could even be legal challenges to the legislation. The Government clearly made a mistake. It disregarded the legislative requirements that are laid down in the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, which was completely overlooked by the Government as it sought to mount yet another cash grab on businesses and property owners. We now know that the Government found out in August that there was a problem with the legislation, but it chose not to tell anyone.
When I look through the bill documents, it is like an episode of “Yes Minister”. The civil service jargon says:
“the amendments made by the 2020 Act to devolve EPR had not had the intended legal effect”.
To use plain English, the SNP Government simply cocked up. Its legislation provided no legal basis for companies to be paying business rates on unoccupied properties over three budgetary years. As the minister said, the money that is involved amounts to £400 million. Businesses across Scotland have, in good faith, been paying non-domestic rates on unoccupied properties that they should not have been paying. That is not a trivial amount of money, and this is not a trivial issue. That £400 million could have been used, in the interim, to support businesses to invest in jobs and growth, but that has not been happening.
I have listened with interest to Craig Hoy’s comments, but I have a question for him. Given the significant sums of money involved, what will his party do? Will it resist the approach to fixing the problem, or will it act responsibly? Which is it?
I am going to hold the minister and the Government to account, and I am going to ask for more transparency and scrutiny so that the Government does not repeat the mistake that it is presently trying to fix.
Having messed up once already, the Government is now seeking permission from the Parliament to rush through a piece of legislation to cover a mistake that is entirely of its own making. As Opposition MSPs, we do not have an army of civil servants at our disposal to produce amendments at short notice and, unlike the SNP Government, we do not have dozens of spin doctors to create a smokescreen. We need time to scrutinise the bill. The SNP Government published it only yesterday, but it wants it to be passed in two days.
The SNP is using the distraction of the UK budget as a smokescreen to cover for its own incompetence. Worse still, it is trying to fix rushed legislation with rushed legislation. Given the Scottish Government’s track record, we believe that there should be much more scrutiny of the bill, because how do we know that it will not make the situation worse?
John Swinney’s Government wants to pass an emergency law to keep £400 million that it took from businesses but was not legally entitled to take. I recognise that what has happened creates financial pressures—pressures that the Scottish Government has brought on itself through its incompetence—and those pressures could add to the pressures that are already felt by local government.
Let me ask the Government a few questions. It might want to respond to them in writing or find a means to respond to them today. Given that we are being asked to pass emergency legislation, will the Government confirm that it has taken sound legal advice on the competence of the bill? If so, is it watertight? What is the Scottish Government’s assessment of the likely success of any legal challenge that might be initiated against the new legislation? My understanding from speaking to stakeholders today is that several property owners are giving active consideration to such legal challenges. Most important, does the minister think that it is right for businesses and Scotland’s councils to pay the price for the SNP’s incompetence?
For those reasons, we cannot support the use of emergency powers. Even if the motion is agreed to, we cannot support the timetable for the bill, which is the direct result of SNP incompetence. That reflects the fact that we need significantly more scrutiny and transparency in relation not just to this SNP bill but to its general dealings with the Parliament.
16:43
Today, we are being invited to agree to treat the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill as an emergency bill and to consider it under an accelerated timetable. The bill is necessary because of a legislative error in the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 2020, which, inadvertently, according to the Government, removed the legal basis for charging non-domestic rates on unoccupied properties.
In the debate so far, we have heard a dispute about what should and should not happen and who should and should not be responsible. Those are genuine arguments, and there need to be answers to those genuine questions. We have been presented with a piece of defective legislation. When it was passed, everyone had one understanding of what it achieved, but the legal understanding of it is different.
The Parliament is being asked to pass an emergency bill to repair a small error. That is not to make excuses for the error; we should explore why it occurred in the first place. Indeed, we in the Parliament have faced a number of challenges around the competency of legislation, and yet we have heard on a number of occasions an urge to cut debate times so that legislation cannot be explored. Maybe that is something that we all need to look at.
Does Mr Whitfield have any suggestions about why the Government has chosen to introduce the bill this week of all weeks?
I am grateful for the intervention, but that lies outside my knowledge. At the simplest level, we are just trying to restore Parliament’s original intention. We are not introducing any new costs or changing policy. We are seeking continuity and the creation of legal certainty.
However, the challenge is that this is retrospective legislation, which should always be exceptional. The challenge is in the fundamental principle of legal certainty and the idea that people should know what the law is before acting. Applying new rules to past actions risks unfairness, undermines trust in the Parliament and could invite challenges on the basis of human and other rights.
Martin Whitfield is rightly speaking about the interpretation of the proposed legislation. Where has that interpretation been between August, when the Government first found out about it, and yesterday, when it introduced the bill? Surely we need absolute clarity and transparency on that. If the bill proceeds and we have amendments at stage 2, will the Labour Party support amendments, were I to lodge them, that ask the Government to release all documents and correspondence around the bill?
There needs to be absolute transparency and understanding—and not necessarily for any party-political reasons. There needs to be an understandable, honest narrative about how we got here. I am not entirely convinced that that could sit within amendments to a bill, I must say—that matter rests with the Presiding Officer—but I absolutely agree with calling for it. There certainly needs to be an explanation, and I will be calling for co-operation across the Parliament in that regard, given the importance of the issue.
This is a tight and short bill that seeks to rectify a problem, but we must have the transparency that is being asked for around how the error occurred and how we can ensure that it does not go further and is not repeated in any future legislation. Yet another error has occurred and we need to restore the reputation of the Parliament and the Scottish Government in passing competent legal legislation.
We will support the motion tonight, because we believe that the bill fits the definition of emergency legislation as required in standing orders, and it needs to be passed swiftly so that we have the clarity that is required inside and outside this place.
16:47
I do not intend to use my full time. The Scottish Greens understand the need for the bill and the proposed timetable, and will support the motion this evening.
I call Graeme Dey to wind up. You have up to four minutes, minister.
16:48
I will be equally concise. I call on members to support the motion to bring the law, as quickly as possible, fully into alignment with the position as intended by Parliament and with the system that has been universally understood and operated in practice since 1 April 2023.
Will the minister take an intervention?
We must maintain the credibility of the tax and protect public finances, and the bill will do that by clarifying the legislative position as quickly as possible.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I understood that you called on Graeme Dey, the minister, to wind up the debate. The minister is repeating his pre-prepared remarks. Serious questions have been raised across the chamber, and I wonder whether we will get an opportunity to hear the minister’s response to those concerns. If this is an emergency and if there is urgency, we deserve a minister who will respond to a 15-minute debate.
As members will be aware, the content of a member’s contribution is a matter for the member.
That concludes the debate—
The minister is not finished. That was a point of order during his speech.
The minister is not finished.
The minister has concluded.
No!
Thank you, colleagues.
That concludes the debate on the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill: emergency bill motion. We move straight to the question on the motion.
The question is, that motion S6M-19890, in the name of Graeme Dey, on the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill: emergency bill motion, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.
16:50 Meeting suspended.
We come to the vote on motion S6M-19890, in the name of Graeme Dey, on the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill: emergency bill motion. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was not able to log in. Had I logged in, I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Leonard. We will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There was chaos—I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Whitfield. We will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to connect. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Mr Mountain. We will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My proxy vote on behalf of Paul O’Kane did not register. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Marra. We will ensure that that is recorded.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra]
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor]
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 88, Against 22, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to,
That the Parliament agrees that the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill be treated as an Emergency Bill.
Next
Urgent Question