Chamber and committees

David Robertson, you went through the process.

It has occurred to me that local authorities do not really have any building or capital costs, so I guess that there is not a level playing field in that regard either. That is probably why they can pay their staff more and, I would imagine, pensions are more generous, too. Therefore, it is even harder for private providers to compete with local authorities when they have all that for free. Would that be correct?

My final question is about the two-year review that Sarah Watters mentioned. Will there be opportunities for local authorities to bid back in for capital funding—for example, for new facilities that they want to build for the service?

I will follow on from that line of questioning about the robustness of the data. I was surprised to read in our briefing paper that, after the first financial template went out in June 2019,

“significant data quality issues were identified”.

A revised template then went out, but only 17 returns were deemed sufficiently accurate and robust to include in the analysis. Can we have confidence in the data from the 17 for which we have figures? On the variances between authorities, the 2021 data for Aberdeenshire Council, for example, shows that 54 per cent of its specific revenue grant was spent on ELC, but Argyll and Bute Council spent the whole 100 per cent. There seem to be huge differences between local authorities. Is the data that we have from those 17 robust enough? How can we ensure that we have data from all local authorities going forward?

David Robertson might have a view on this. Some of the underspends have been because of Covid, with people not taking up their full entitlement and so on over the past couple of years. Could that change?

I notice there are huge differences. Catering is mentioned in our report, with some authorities saying spend took up 6 per cent of the grant, whereas others said that it was zero. I cannot quite understand that from the papers.

That will have an impact on future maintenance of the buildings in question and everything else.

Thank you for being so generous, Presiding Officer.

Non-domestic rates continue to be one of the biggest issues for our local authorities, especially in the north-east of Scotland. I have met many local businesses, to speak to them in order to understand the issues that they face.

As my colleagues have mentioned, the Scottish Conservatives are supportive of the bill in its mirroring of what has happened in the rest of the UK. It is a sensible measure to update the non-domestic rates appeals system. However, I feel that much wider reform is needed. We will continue to press the Scottish Government to meet business leaders to discuss the further reforms that are required.?

Although the bill is welcome, it falls short of providing the help that thousands of businesses need, due to the failed system. During the debate in April, I pointed out that, in 2017, businesses in the north-east of Scotland faced huge increases in their rates bills when the valuation was assessed at the peak of oil and gas activity, only for new bills to arrive just as the sector faced one of its biggest slumps. The courts ruled that there had been no material change in circumstance and that businesses would have to wait for the revaluation to take place. Then that was delayed by a year because of Covid, despite calls from many business leaders for the revaluation date to be brought forward. As the minister pointed out, revaluation was the time for the market to be fixed. The delay was so disappointing for the businesses that were waiting. We continue to have a situation in which the non-domestic rates income from businesses in Aberdeen is greater than that from businesses in Edinburgh—a city with twice its population. Many businesses in the north-east simply cannot believe that that is the case.

The Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts that were released last month gave worrying news to businesses up and down Scotland. They showed that non-domestic rates income was set to increase by 30 per cent over the next five years, from £2.7 billion to £3.6 billion, at a time when growth will be minimal, which left many people wondering where the extra £900 million will come from.

The forecast also showed that some businesses last year voluntarily handed back Covid business rates relief funds to the tune of £126 million. That was the right thing to do for places such as Asda, Sainsbury’s and Boots, whose income seems to have increased. Some may have thought that that cash would go to local authorities to help struggling businesses on the high streets or that it could have been used to plug some of the non-domestic rates overdraft, but no—instead, the devolved Scottish National Party Government used it simply to plug other holes in its budget. Those were business rate support funds and should have been used just for that purpose.

I welcome the contributions from members from across the chamber. First, I agree with Miles Briggs in sending the cabinet secretary my best wishes for what I am sure will be a busy and joyful summer. Miles Briggs also mentioned that the right to appeal has not been removed. Of course, we welcome that. He also mentioned support. For me, that just masks a failing system.

The issue of town centres was mentioned by Miles Briggs and by Alex Rowley. Town centres have faced difficulties over the past few years, and we have an opportunity to fix some of those things with a new system. Miles Briggs also asked for greater transparency over the appeals system, which would be welcomed by so many.

Mark Griffin mentioned warehouses that are used by online retailers who pay very little in non-domestic rates, compared with others. That highlights that change is needed.

The current system of business rates is outdated, and we need to look at a much greater and broader reform. High streets in our local towns and villages struggled for years before the pandemic and have struggled right through it. We have to look at and work with our local businesses to develop a system of rates that works for them and encourages growth. We need to put the voices of business at the heart of our policy making, and I do not see much of that from the SNP-Green devolved Government. Although I welcome the aims and outcomes of the Barclay review, many have viewed its remit as too tight and not wide ranging enough to give the freedom to look at the full picture.

In summary, we welcome the bill as a first, small step. However, more needs to be done. The Scottish Government has the powers. It needs to stop sitting on its hands and use them.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not refresh. I would have voted no.

Will the member take an intervention?