Chamber and committees

Petition PE2019, which was lodged by Alan McLeod, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prevent all owners of self-catering holiday accommodation from obtaining rates relief under the small business bonus scheme.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 1 May 2024, when we agreed to write to ask the Scottish Government for a fuller response to the petition, including a clear indication of its views on the action that the petition calls for.

In its response, the Scottish Government states that it is committed to maintaining the small business bonus scheme for 100,000 properties for the duration of the current parliamentary session, and that it has no plans to add “self-catering holiday accommodation” to the list of properties that are ineligible for small business bonus scheme relief at this time.

The Scottish Government also states that it is committed to keeping under review all recently implemented non-domestic rates reforms, such as changes to the thresholds for the small business bonus scheme relief, and to ensuring that the system effectively supports businesses and communities.

In his written submission, the petitioner shares his view that awarding market-distorting rates relief to businesses that secure economic advantage from state-provided infrastructure is unfair to citizens who are being denied critical care and services.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Thank you, Mr Ewing. Those are all helpful points to have on the record. However, as you said, the Scottish Government has made it absolutely clear that it has no intention of taking forward the issue in the petition. On that basis, it is proposed that we close the petition, albeit with a statement attached, which we can ensure that the petitioner receives. Are colleagues content that we do so?

Members indicated agreement.

Do any colleagues have further reflections?

I understand that, but the petitioner’s argument is that those who seek to dismiss property factors in the civil courts find that the whole process is not practical. Because of the intimidatory nature of potential legal costs and the unquantifiable nature of what they might be, it effectively flashes the frighteners, if I can put it that way, at residents who might feel that that is what they want to do so they hesitate before doing so. How do you respond to that inherent fear, which they say is a deterrent to acting on that instinct, even when they feel that it is what they have to do?

I deferred our consideration of PE2125 to allow for the arrival of our esteemed former colleague Paul Sweeney, who might want to find his nameplate and join us at the table.

Petition PE2125, which was lodged by Victoria Shotton, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to restart overdue work on NHS Scotland buildings and prioritise funding for primary care building projects to ensure that community health teams have the physical spaces and renovations that are required to treat their patients efficiently and safely.

As I indicated, we have been joined by our former colleague Paul Sweeney. Welcome back to the committee, Mr Sweeney.

The petitioner tells us that funding for general practice has always been too low for service provision, with many primary care buildings across Scotland being well overdue for renovation or complete replacement. The situation has been exacerbated by the Scottish Government’s decision in February last year to pause all new NHS capital projects, which might be contributing to widening health inequalities and poor health outcomes for communities.

Our SPICe briefing notes indicate that a recent Audit Scotland report on the finances and performance of the NHS in Scotland recommends that the Scottish Government produces a national capital investment and asset management strategy. According to data published by Public Health Scotland, payments from NHS Scotland to general practices increased by 5.5 per cent in 2023-24 compared with the previous year. It is also noted that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has announced £13.6 million of additional funding for general practice, although that is intended to support retention and recruitment of staff.

Despite the Scottish Government indicating that it would publish a reset of the infrastructure investment plan project pipeline along with the 2024-25 budget, that did not happen. It has been delayed until after the UK Government’s spending review, which is due to conclude in the spring of 2025.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government highlights an additional investment of £139 million for NHS infrastructure as part of the 2025-26 budget proposals, which it says will be the first step in lifting the pause on capital projects. The response goes on to state that the Government is working with health boards to develop a whole-system NHS infrastructure plan, which will include the needs of the primary care estate.

I am sorry—that was quite a long preamble. Mr Sweeney, would you like to comment on the petition before I invite the committee to consider what we might do next?

Thank you, Mr Ewing. As the representative of Eastwood, which also has a very fast-growing population and is in what is obviously one of the most attractive parts of the country, I have similar concerns about practice provision in relation to new-build housing in the community. Indeed, a general practice in my constituency has just announced that it will close, which will cause even greater issues, so I understand the point that Mr Ewing has made, which marries with Mr Sweeney’s suggestions.

Are we content to keep the petition open and write to the cabinet secretary, perhaps with less emphasis on the constituency concerns of two members of the committee and more emphasis on the general points that have been raised in support of the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

If there are no other suggestions from colleagues, are we content to keep the petition open and to initiate inquiries as suggested by Mr Ewing?

Members indicated agreement.

Finally, the minister and Jill Clark have touched on Under One Roof in its contributions. In its submission, the organisation takes the view that the complexity of the law on dismissing property factors, as well as the separate issue of what some people see as the intimidatory nature of the costs that they might be contemplating, is a barrier to home owners who want to switch property factors. It all looks too difficult to navigate. Is there a hope that the advice will also assist with that issue? Is that your response to the views of Under One Roof?

That scene setting was interesting. Do colleagues have any questions?

That is very helpful. Thank you.

It seems that colleagues do not have any further questions. It was quite brief this morning, minister, but I think that, from our point of view, we got to the nub of the matter. It was short but sweet—I am sure that you are perfectly happy that that was the case. We thank you all very much for your participation.