Chamber and committees

As I have said, our intent in the order is to clarify what is, in our view, an appropriate use of a material change of circumstances appeal. The intent was set out in the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 2020; the order clarifies that. To reiterate my previous point, market-wide changes of circumstance are better considered in the context of revaluation, whereas a material change of circumstance is usually more a matter for specific delineated local circumstances.

I hope that that clarifies the motivation, purpose and thinking behind the Government’s introduction of the order. Obviously, the matter that you raise is for assessors, who operate independently, to determine.

Mr Coffey articulates the matter very well. With an appeals process, there is great uncertainty—there is uncertainty over timescales and over the outcome. As Mr Coffey will be aware, since the start of the pandemic, the Scottish Government has supported business through a combination of reliefs and grants of about £4.5 billion.

Another important point to make is that we cannot assume that the link between the rental value and the economic circumstances of an individual business is clear cut. From a fairness perspective, I believe that the model whereby we have provided support through business grants is far more effective and provides far more certainty. That is the approach that we have taken, and it will continue to inform how the money that we will, I hope, eventually receive from the UK Government will be deployed to support businesses.

Mr Coffey raises an important point. He will appreciate that it has not been possible to support every business and organisation that we would like to have supported, due to a combination of the ability to administer and the ultimate limitation on the resources that are available to be deployed.

Throughout the pandemic, over the past 20 months, we have listened, reflected and learned, which has informed how iterations of support have been provided. As I said, dialogue is on-going and we will reflect on such matters.

I am conscious that the committee has taken evidence on that issue. It would not necessarily be appropriate for a minister to comment on operational aspects of how assessors conduct their business. I will ask Anouk Berthier to provide some more detail.

I reiterate the points that I made in my answer to Mr Briggs. There is on-going engagement between ministers, individual businesses and representative bodies. That is a routine feature of the engagement in the finance and economy portfolio, so there has been the opportunity for discussion. As I said, the issue has not been raised in a significant way, and that has been reflected in contributions that were made in the committee’s previous evidence sessions. I highlight that there is an on-going process of engagement that provides a forum for businesses to raise any issues with ministers, including on the matter that the member mentions.

The member will be aware that the Government has consulted on a draft framework for tax and that engagement is one of the key principles that underpin our approach. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, my ministerial colleague Ivan McKee and I have had extensive engagement with business since our respective appointments following May’s election.

As I mentioned, the UK Government announced a similar measure in March that indicated its direction of travel. The Scottish Government indicated our intention in June. That has been clearly communicated and we have had extensive conversations with business, but I have to be frank. The matter has not been routinely raised with ministers, and that has been reflected in the evidence that the committee has taken over recent weeks.

Yes. On balance, we believe that the change is justified and necessary and that it is in the public interest. The order aims to prevent inappropriate use of the material change of circumstances provision. It is about ensuring fairness for all ratepayers and, importantly, protecting revenues for local authorities to enable them to fund the services on which we rely.

As a point of context, I note that, as the committee will be aware, the intervention is not unique to Scotland. Similar measures are being implemented in Wales, and the United Kingdom Government is taking similar action in respect of its responsibilities regarding the non-domestic rates system in England.

You asked whether we had received any of the money. I gave a monosyllabic response. No, we have not received any of it. I followed that up by saying that I understand that no businesses in England have yet received any of that money, either. We have no certainty about when we are likely to receive that funding from the UK Government.

The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 allows local authorities to set local reliefs, and responsibility for empty property relief will be devolved from 1 April 2023. We have taken action in recent years to give local authorities greater flexibility over NDR, but we must be cognisant of one of the key asks of business, which is for stability in the system. We have had a period of significant change with the implementation of the Barclay review, and that implementation needs to be fully completed. Local authorities have existing flexibilities over reliefs under the 2015 act.

I echo that point. Although it is not appropriate for me as a minister to comment specifically, I have read through the evidence that was provided to the committee last week, which will help the committee to reach an informed and rounded view on the matter.