Chamber and committees

There are two aspects. First, our spatial strategy recognises the tremendous economic opportunities that are provided by our coastal communities and also the particular challenges that they face and their particular vulnerability to climate change. Within the policies, policy 35 is a specific policy on coasts. I draw the committee’s attention to policy 35(b), which states:

“Development proposals that require a coastal location should be supported in areas of developed shoreline where the proposal does not result in the need for further coastal protection measures and does not increase the risk to people of coastal flooding or coastal erosion and is anticipated to be supportable in the long term.”

Policy 35(c) states that:

“Development proposals in undeveloped coastal areas should only be supported if the proposal is necessary to support the blue economy, net zero emissions or if it would contribute to the economic regeneration or wellbeing of communities whose livelihood depend on marine or coastal activities.”

That particular tension that Ms Adam articulated is reflected with the spatial strategy but also very specifically in policy 35 on coasts. Fiona Simpson, is there anything that you want to add?

That has ultimately come about through a collaborative process, as outlined earlier. As I said, we are open to suggestions about how things can be refined or changed. That is part of the consultation process and engagement. This is a draft document, and we are ultimately in a process of engagement and collaboration that has led us to the draft spatial strategy within NPF4. We are keen to hear views on how it can be refined and, if there are areas that you are suggesting are inconsistent or will not realise the aspirations, that can be reflected on and potentially acted upon through the process of finalising the framework.

Fiona Simpson might want to add something specific about particular action areas within the spatial plan and how they were formed.

I stress that at the heart of this is a place-based approach, and a place-based approach is holistic when it takes everything into account. We are not dividing Scotland up neatly. Clearly, some of the action areas that might be applicable to remote communities might also be applicable to urban communities, while there will obviously be completely distinct areas that do not have the same relevance to others. Although we have identified five action areas in the NPF, again, it is important to look at it holistically and see the complementarity that exists between the different regions and areas.

The strategy also recognises the aspirations for a net zero aviation zone by 2040.

My final point relates to the centrality and importance of the local planning authority and of local communities having the opportunity to feed into the development of local place plans, because, ultimately, it will be for local communities to shape the direction of travel for their area.

Thank you, convener. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee to answer questions about the instrument, which relates to land registration. As the committee will appreciate, the keeper of the registers of Scotland plays a vital role in the Scottish economy by safeguarding property rights through the registration of documents in the land register and the register of sasines.

In response to the necessary closure of Registers of Scotland’s offices due to the Covid pandemic, the emergency coronavirus acts provided a basis for applications to be submitted to ROS digitally, thereby ensuring that the property market could continue to operate during the period of public health restrictions. That method of submission has proved to be enormously popular, and there has been strong stakeholder support for its retention, so the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced yesterday and will be published today, will look to provide a continuing basis for applications to be submitted to ROS digitally.

The regulations before the committee complement the bill by making digital submission the default method of submission to ROS, subject to exceptions. In addition, the regulations open up the register of deeds in the books of council and session to electronic documents for the first time.

The regulations also make technical amendments to the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 to clarify and make additional provision on issues that have come to light through the increased use of electronic documents and signatures over the past two years.

The regulations give effect to proposals that were set out in the digital submission consultation that Registers of Scotland held on our behalf, which set out plans for how digital submission could be placed on a permanent statutory footing for several of the keeper’s registers, and how that represented a positive step on the road to fully digital registration.

The reaction to that consultation was overwhelmingly positive, with customers and stakeholders showing strong support for the proposals. There is a clear expectation within the conveyancing profession that digital submission should become the standard method of submitting applications to ROS.

As the convener mentioned, I am joined by Harry Murray from Registers of Scotland and Graham Fisher from the Scottish Government legal directorate. Along with my officials, I would be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

I thank Michelle Thomson for her support for the measures and for recognising that this is an opportunity to take another step towards a fully digital service. Before I ask Harry Murray to come in, I make the observation that the regulations put on a permanent footing what has been in place for the past couple of years with the digital submission service.

As you will be aware from the response to the consultation, which was carried out from December 2020 to February 2021, there has been overwhelming stakeholder support. I encourage members who have an interest in the application of digital technology to public services to read the responses to the consultation. It is encouraging and heartening to see how overwhelming the support has been on a range of issues, including efficiency, ease of use and savings on postal costs and paper, which, I am sure, we would all welcome, given our environmental commitments.

With regard to your question seeking assurance on the capacity to deliver in the future, I ask Harry Murray to expand on the points that I have made.

I thank Mr Burnett for his important questions. As he will be aware, while the system moves to a digital-by-default approach, there are exemptions in the regulations. For example, if the Registers of Scotland IT system had been down for a period of more than 48 hours, paper applications would be possible. Similarly, in relation to the important point that Mr Burnett raises, for those individuals who do not have access to a computer or an internet connection, the option of paper submission will still be available. In addition, the keeper has a discretionary power to allow for paper submissions in exceptional circumstances.

Perhaps Harry Murray could expand on some of those points.

I agree entirely that there was overwhelming, near-unanimous support. A small proportion of respondents—the figure was less than 10 per cent—raised questions, primarily with regard to a digital-by-default approach and the potential consequence that could arise from that of people being excluded. The previous line of questioning shows how that issue has been addressed through the building in of safeguards.

A limited number of concerns were raised around security of personal data but, again, as has been touched on, that issue has been addressed, in the sense that no new personal data is being collected through this process. As we have seen over the past two years, the digital submission service is a robust and resilient service, which has served us well throughout the pandemic. Indeed, as well as providing us with a more efficient service, it will also provide us with a more resilient service, should any other unforeseen events—I hope that this will not be the case—require the interventions that we have been living with over the past two years.

Harry Murray may wish to add something from an ROS perspective.

I am happy for Harry to respond to your question.

Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence. The purpose of the draft order is to ensure that, in calculating the rateable value of specified properties after the order comes into force, no account can be taken of any matter arising on or after 1 April 2021 that is attributable to coronavirus.

Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, more than 40,000 non-domestic properties have been appealed on the basis that there has been a material change of circumstances due to the pandemic. Typically, a “material change of circumstances” has been used to reflect either physical changes to a property, such as an extension or demolition, or certain major works in a specific area, such as the tram works in Edinburgh. The Scottish Parliament amended the definition to exclude changes in rent, in valuations generally or in values generally under the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 2020, with effect from 2 April 2020.

The draft order further clarifies that definition in relation to coronavirus by specifying that, in calculating the rateable value of any properties in the 2017 valuation roll,

“no account is to be taken of any matter arising ... after 1 April 2021 that is directly or indirectly attributable to coronavirus.”

The use of that date is due to the fact that subordinate legislation cannot take us further back. Primary legislation is needed for that, and we confirmed in our programme for government our intention to introduce a bill on the matter in year 1.

The draft order applies only to the current 2017 valuation roll, which is consistent with our view that any impact of Covid-19 should be reflected at the next revaluation. Also, the order does not take into account whether a property should be included in the valuation roll. For instance, if someone started working from home as a result of the pandemic, the legislation would not affect whether their office space might be considered rateable.

The intention of the change in definition was to remove general economic factors from the category of relevant factors to consider in the context of valuation.

Although appeals have been submitted for more than 40,000 properties, that is less than a fifth of all non-domestic properties in Scotland and, as the Federation of Small Businesses pointed out, not many small businesses are among them. That may reflect our existing generous support package for small businesses, but it is likely that it also reflects the fact that well-resourced professionally advised property owners and occupiers are more likely to know about the material change of circumstances provisions and are therefore more likely to have appealed.

I am aware that some large firms under appeal have been successful during the pandemic. As was highlighted in evidence last week, there is a disconnect between how Covid has felt to businesses and how it has impacted on rents in the commercial property market. It is a hugely complex issue and Covid-19 appeals could take years to resolve. The outcome is also uncertain. It cannot be assumed that those appeals would be successful, or their outcome fair.

In light of that complexity and the provisions in the 2020 act, it seems to me that the question here is quite a dry and technical one. When is the right time for market-wide economic changes, including any effects of coronavirus, to be reflected in rateable values? We believe that the right time for such changes to be reflected is at revaluation.

We strengthened revaluations following the independent Barclay review of non-domestic rates in order to ensure that they more closely reflect market circumstances. First, we increased the frequency of revaluations from every five years to every three years and reduced the time between the tone date and the revaluation. Secondly, with the support of your predecessor committee, we delayed the next revaluation by one year to 2023 and brought forward that commitment to a one-year tone date. The tone date for the next revaluation will therefore be 1 April 2022 in order to give sufficient time for the property market to adjust post Covid.

Covid-19 has had a major impact on the economy, and we responded swiftly and on an unprecedented scale to support businesses through the pandemic. We introduced 100 per cent retail, hospitality, leisure and aviation relief in 2020-21, and we are the first Government to confirm a full extension of that relief to 2021-22.

The extension of the RHLA relief into 2021-22 takes the total level of support that the Scottish Government has provided to businesses since the beginning of the pandemic to £4.5 billion, which includes £1.6 billion of Covid-related reliefs. That demonstrates that the Scottish Government has acted quickly to support the business community when it most needed that support. We have been able to support businesses through the pandemic, but we must bear in mind that we must also continue to fund the public services on which we all rely.

I return to my opening comments. The draft order seeks to ensure fairness for all Scottish ratepayers while maintaining the integrity of the non-domestic rates system as well as the stability of the public finances. If the instrument is not approved, the non-domestic rates system and, therefore, the public finances will carry significant long-term risks for years.

I look forward to answering any questions that the committee has.