Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Official Report 946KB pdf

---

Non-domestic Rates (Arm’s-length External Organisations)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-09221, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on the Barclay review and arm’s-length external organisations.

16:24  

It is fair to say that this debate will be rather different from the one that we expected when we put down the subject for discussion last week. I expected to come to the chamber and demand that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution axe the swim tax. He has, of course, beaten me to it. As I am a generous soul, I thank the cabinet secretary for announcing yesterday that the proposal to remove rates relief from local authority arm’s-length organisations—or ALEOs—will not now proceed and for bowing to the inevitable. We have to accept that he did that. I am sure that the timing of yesterday’s announcement was purely coincidental, in the context of this debate taking place this afternoon, so let me be generous in my thanks to the cabinet secretary for his U-turn.

I also thank the other Opposition parties in the Parliament for their co-operation and for indicating that they were prepared to work with us and ensure a united front. Most of all, I thank my Conservative colleagues for leading the charge against the swim tax and delivering a significant victory for this Parliament, for the Opposition parties and, most of all, for the Scottish Conservatives.

Just two weeks ago, there was a members’ business debate in this chamber on a motion in the name of my colleague Gordon Lindhurst about the Barclay review recommendation that the current charitable exemption from paying non-domestic rates for local authority arm’s-length organisations should be removed. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments in the debate, but it is worth reminding ourselves how we got here.

Before I go further, I reassure members, particularly Bruce Crawford, who has a strong personal interest in this, that I will not be modelling a pair of Speedos during the debate. I am sure that that will come as a great disappointment to Mr Crawford and other members. I have to say that I cannot speak for Mr Lindhurst. However, I will not be modelling Speedos.

The background to the issue is the Barclay review of non-domestic rates, which produced a comprehensive summary of the issues, albeit that it was hamstrung from the start by the finance secretary’s requirement that recommendations be revenue neutral. The Barclay review characterised arm’s-length organisations, including those that provide leisure and cultural facilities, as “tax avoidance” structures. Although that might be technically correct, that language was unhelpful, particularly in the context of what we have heard in recent weeks about the paradise papers.

Incidentally, I was interested to hear the finance secretary say in the debate a couple of weeks ago that tax avoidance might not be “a bad thing”. I am sure that he will want to reassure me that he was referring only to the limited circumstances that we were debating, rather than to the more general issue.

Will the member give way?

Of course I will.

My purpose in life is to reassure Murdo Fraser, and I am happy to do so. Of course there is a world of difference between tax avoidance whereby people take money for profit and squirrel it away and ALEOs, which take the tax that is avoided as a construct of their corporate governance arrangements and reinvest it in public services.

I am grateful to the finance secretary for giving me that reassurance on the record.

I was interested to read some of the cabinet secretary’s comments yesterday about what might happen in future when local authorities that do not currently have ALEOs consider setting up such structures. Perhaps he will clarify those comments in his speech.

I hope that this is a helpful intervention; I will sum up the debate and I will be interested to hear members’ views on this point. I recommend that current ALEOs in trust status have their relief maintained, but I have made the point in previous debates that there is a risk to future services, therefore we should draw a line to ensure that no new services are transferred into that category. That is my position.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for clarifying his position, which will be of interest to some local authorities in Scotland, who I am sure will want to raise the issue.

The proposal that rates should be charged of ALEOs met a great deal of objection from across the country. Robin Strang, the chair of Sporta Scotland, which is the membership body for culture and leisure trusts in Scotland, and Anthony McReavy, the chair of VOCAL, the association for culture and leisure managers in Scotland, wrote jointly to committees of this Parliament to express their concern, saying that the implementation of the recommendation would result in a “catastrophic and irreversible impact” on the provision of community-valued leisure, parks and culture across Scotland. Sporta and VOCAL were clear on the impact of implementing the recommendation.

It would have seemed particularly strange to charge rates of ALEOs at a time when we are trying to encourage more people to get involved in sport and leisure activity and to tackle obesity, and when our cultural output is vital to our economic and tourism offer.

I am therefore glad that the cabinet secretary has responded to a vigorous Conservative campaign and that we have this climbdown from the Scottish Government. In a spirit of generosity, I say that we will be happy to accept the Scottish Government amendment to our motion.

It was after mature debate and consideration that the Scottish Government withdrew these tax proposals. Of course, we are having another mature debate about and giving mature consideration to levels of income tax. I can only hope that the mature debate on income tax will lead the cabinet secretary to the same conclusion that he reached on the swim tax, and that we will see that proposal axed as well.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the recommendation of the Barclay Review of Non-Domestic Rates that local authority arm’s-length external organisations (ALEOs) providing leisure and cultural facilities should have their charitable exemption from rates removed; further notes that this proposal has caused widespread concern across Scotland with fears that, if implemented, it would mean the closure of a large number of facilities and/or substantial increases in user charges, and calls on the Scottish Government to reject this recommendation.

16:30  

From the outset, the Scottish Government said that it would consider the Barclay review’s 30 recommendations, which were for a mix of support and revenue-raising measures. They were presented as measures that would support growth, improve administration and increase fairness. It was acknowledged that none of them would be easy.

Kenneth Barclay estimated that ending charity relief for council ALEOs would generate £45 million. It was the review’s biggest revenue-raising recommendation. During his statement on 12 September, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance accepted the vast majority of the recommendations, including a range of measures to support growth and investment that have been widely welcomed by business.

The Barclay review aimed to ensure that non-domestic rates support growth and reflect economic conditions. It suggested that ALEOs—in particular, leisure trusts—had an unfair competitive advantage over privately operated gyms.

The cabinet secretary undertook to fully engage with and listen to those who would be impacted by the recommendations, which he did. He reflected on what he was presented with and made yesterday’s positive announcement. This Government will go to great lengths to protect the Scottish public from seeing Murdo Fraser in Speedos.

Derek Mackay announced that qualifying properties that are currently occupied by ALEOs will continue to benefit from charity relief from non-domestic rates. As we have heard, those include many well-used leisure and cultural venues across the country. The Scottish Government will take steps to offset the charity relief benefit for councils from any new ALEO expansion in the future.

I put on record our appreciation of the excellent work that sport and leisure trusts and cultural venues do across the country, along with the work of the local authorities that manage the services.

The minister spoke about offsetting charity relief benefit for councils to deter future ALEOs. Will councils that still have every one of their sport and leisure facilities in-house receive compensation for the full rates that are charged for those facilities? If they will not, they will not be deterred from creating an ALEO in the future.

In his statement yesterday, the cabinet secretary said that he wants to offset any further charity relief benefit for councils to deter future ALEO expansion, and he continues to engage with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on many of the issues. I am sure that we will continue to pick up on those points throughout the rest of the debate.

I have thanked sport and leisure trusts for their work. I also thank all those who have taken part in the consultation process. In my portfolio, Sporta and VOCAL worked with their partners to provide us with the required information as the Government reflected on what Barclay had recommended. Their research suggested that 92 per cent of all trusts confirmed that they would be forced to close leisure centres and swimming pools, with 65 per cent of them stating that community facilities such as town and village halls and community centres could face a similar fate. Similarly, cultural organisations outlined a pretty bleak future for facilities that provide much-needed and enriching cultural offerings, including museums, galleries and libraries. It is important to remember that those facilities are more than just potential revenue streams; they are community assets that provide places to meet, be active, play, learn and enjoy a host of pursuits.

In my roles as the Minister for Public Health and Sport, the constituency member for Clydesdale and a mother who takes her two wee boys to the local leisure centre—regardless of where it is—it has been my privilege to visit a number of leisure trusts and hear about their work. That work often goes above and beyond simply being a sports centre and aligns them with the Government’s priorities to get people more active more often and to tackle unfair inequalities. From swimming classes for disabled children to strength and balance work for the elderly and dementia-friendly exercise classes, leisure trusts provide a variety of services, often benefiting the hardest people to reach in society.

However, I have always made it clear to leisure trusts that they must better evidence the impact that they are having in their local communities. Although the Government has rejected the recommendation, that does not mean that we can be complacent or continue as we have been. We must work collectively to articulate with robust evidence exactly what those community facilities bring and what further potential they have.

We are familiar with the arguments on the need to nudge our population towards being active. We are also familiar with the statistics that show that physical inactivity results in around 2,500 premature deaths a year, costs the national health service around £94.1 million annually and can have a significant impact on more than 25 chronic conditions.

Leisure trusts can position themselves firmly in that preventative health space, and some already do. There they can clearly differentiate themselves from other leisure providers, as they have opportunities to collaborate with the NHS, local authorities and third sector colleagues in the delivery of health and social care services. The power of that potential collaboration, if it is done in a consistent way, is huge. They also have the opportunity to support local groups without fear that they are in competition with them, and there is surely scope for them to collaborate across their territorial boundaries in the pursuit of maximising the impact of their significant resource.

Yesterday afternoon, I spoke to both Sporta and VOCAL, which are rightly proud of what their members achieve. There is great scope for us to continue working in partnership, along with my colleague Derek Mackay and others, to seize the chance to get the most out of this considerable resource, which should be maximised so that the benefits for all can be felt.

I look forward to hearing the speeches from across the chamber.

16:35  

It gives me pleasure to speak in this afternoon’s debate on the Barclay review and ALEOs. As Murdo Fraser said, it is perhaps a very different debate from the one that we expected a little over 24 hours ago. Much as the Government talks about the consideration that it has given to the issue, the consultation on it and so on, the reality is that, 24 hours ago, the Government faced the prospect of a defeat on the issue, with the Opposition parties uniting to vote down the Government at 5 o’clock. Mr Mackay rushed out his press release yesterday afternoon in order to avoid that defeat. [Interruption.] If evidence of that is needed, it is usual in finance debates to see Mr Mackay leading the charge for the Government from the front, but, bearing in mind that this is a concession—

Will the member take an intervention?

Let me finish this point. Because this is a concession that he has been dragged into making, he has put the valiant Aileen Campbell up to front the debate this afternoon.

I cannot allow any extra time, Mr Kelly.

I think that it is appropriate that the minister who is responsible for the area, which includes sport and sporting organisations, speaks for the Government in the chamber.

With regard to ministerial views, rather than Murdo Fraser, it was Aileen Campbell who represented the sector by ensuring that the Government took the decision. That is all the more reason for Aileen Campbell to speak in the debate.

Much as Mr Mackay tries, that does not sound very convincing.

I was interested to hear Aileen Campbell talk about the consultation. I am surprised that the Government felt the need to consult on the recommendation. It follows logically that, if the sporting venues in the various council areas were going to have to pay business rates, that would lead to the closure of many of them. Not only would that have had a detrimental effect on local communities, which see those sporting facilities as the lifeblood of their local area; it would also have significantly reduced sport participation rates, which is something that Aileen Campbell talks about consistently as the sports minister.

During health questions this afternoon, there was quite a vigorous debate about funding for the Scottish Sports Association, which showed how strongly members feel about funding sport. That funding would have been severely undermined had the original decision been followed. From that point of view, I welcome the Government’s U-turn.

It is essential that we look at the overall funding package to see what will be raised through non-domestic rates, because the £2.8 billion is to contribute to local authority budgets. This is a complex area in which it is important to make the solutions correct and transparent, and it is absolutely essential that the effect is cost neutral and does not result in reductions to the overall local government settlement.

Although the U-turn will be welcomed by many councils, we will need to examine the consequential issues that Colin Smyth and other members have raised, such as the situation for council sporting facilities that are not ALEOs and the fact that the local government settlement cannot be undermined as a result.

16:40  

I thank Murdo Fraser for securing the debate, and I thank those who provided briefings for it. As I said during Gordon Lindhurst’s members’ business debate last week, the way in which we have developed policy on non-domestic rates historically has often been ad hoc and opportunistic, but the system of non-domestic rates itself is based on sound principles.

The cabinet secretary and his predecessor are fond of citing Adam Smith’s four maxims of taxation, one of which is the equality or proportionality of the ability to pay. However, the Scottish ministers never complete the maxim, which, in full, reads:

“The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

When Adam Smith wrote that, income tax did not exist—it had yet to be invented—and the revenue that he was referring to was the revenue arising from the economic rent of land. Today, almost 250 years later, the non-domestic rating system continues to capture or socialise that economic rent.

On the question of charitable relief for arm’s-length organisations, as I said in the previous debate on the issue, I am not persuaded that there is a case for withdrawal of the relief, and such a case as might exist should follow a full impact assessment. We welcome yesterday’s announcement by the Government, but we regret a little that a system that is already complex and dealt with in an ad hoc fashion is to have further ad hoc provisions attached to it in the form of Derek Mackay’s proposal for future ALEOs, which will add more complexity.

The fact that the proposal is even under consideration is a result of the peculiar manner in which the Barclay review was framed. In September 2013, Derek Mackay, the then Minister for Local Government and Planning, published a response to the consultation document “Supporting Business, Promoting Growth” in which he said that the Scottish Government would

“conduct a thorough and comprehensive review of the whole business rates system”

by 2017, which would deliver

“a fairer, simpler and more efficient business rates system.”

That review never took place. Instead, we had the Barclay review, which asked only one question:

“How would you redesign the business rates system to better support business and incentivise investment?”

Further, the review was instructed that its recommendations should be revenue neutral, which meant, in practice, that any proposals that were made to reduce liabilities in any way had to be balanced by measures that would make up for the lost yield. Barclay was not the comprehensive review that was promised in 2013; that review has yet to take place.

It was in the narrow context in which the Barclay review took place that the idea under debate emerged, with no proper grounding in taxation principles or recognition of the legitimate debate to be had on charitable relief and other reliefs. I have long argued that charitable relief is a blunt instrument, as is the small business bonus scheme, which, as I reported some weeks ago, results in many short-term lets in Edinburgh avoiding £6 million in tax liabilities.

It is high time that we had a proper debate on the system of local taxation and how to make it fairer, more transparent and locally accountable. The Greens advocate a system of land value tax whereby there would be no tax liability on improvements but a levy solely on land values. My colleagues and I recently calculated that, despite the current housing crisis, there are thousands of hectares of derelict and vacant land, some of which is owned by users of offshore tax havens who pay not a penny to local services.

Councils could and should be provided with powers to tax the capital gains of main residences, and we could scrap the land and buildings transaction tax, revalue domestic property and do much more. Every hour that we spend debating ad hoc proposals arising out of flawed reviews is an hour wasted, when we could and should turn our efforts to far more fundamental reform.

16:44  

I suggest that Murdo Fraser should apologise to Derek Mackay. There was poor Mr Mackay trying to think of one or two cheerful bits of news for the budget in two weeks’ time and he alighted on the obvious thing to do, which is to take away the threat that is hanging over our sports clubs and many other organisations around Scotland. However, the Tories lodged a motion, which the rest of us will support, and Derek Mackay’s opportunity for glory in two weeks’ time was swept away from him. We should have started the debate with Mr Fraser apologising to Mr Mackay for that disgraceful bit of political grandstanding.

This is an important outcome for the sports clubs, leisure facilities and many other organisations across Scotland that would have been in a big financial hole if the measure had been allowed and the rates relief had been removed. It is in that spirit that we should debate. The sports organisations made a careful and considered case to both Government and Opposition parties about the importance of wider policy in any decision to remove rates relief, and they did so in a way that was important from a number of perspectives.

In my part of the world, one of those perspectives is competition. Barclay considered that there should be a change in respect of those sports facilities that were, as he saw it, competing with the private sector. That does not exist in Shetland and it does not exist in many parts of rural Scotland. It may exist in some of our cities, but there are different arguments there, as was made clear during Gordon Lindhurst’s debate a week or so ago.

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary recognised that point and made the change, but I want to highlight another point. In response to Murdo Fraser’s remarks, the cabinet secretary made an observation about definitions and what may or may not happen in future, and about keeping that under review. It is important that, when the Government looks again at the use of ALEOs by local government, it recognises Audit Scotland’s definitions. There is some room for sensible arrangements to be made by local government in trying to ensure that the people whom it serves receive the best service possible through the kinds of organisations that we are protecting here tonight.

I have two final points. On Friday night, instead of having a debate in the Clickimin leisure centre in Shetland about how to find £700,000 of savings, we will have our annual sports awards. We are honoured this year to have Gregor Townsend, the Scottish national rugby coach, joining us as our guest. It would have been Derek Mackay, but we did not know that he was going to make this U-turn, or we would have invited him to do the honours—[Interruption.] Not in Speedos, no. There are some things we will not put up with in Shetland and that is certainly one.

The important point is that we have an agreed sports strategy in my part of the world that involves the national health service, sportscotland, our local council and our leisure facility trust. That ensures that, as the Government asks us to, we look at participation in healthy lifestyles and at tackling mental ill health across all ages. For me, that is at the heart of what this debate should be about. The Minister for Public Health and Sport suggested in her opening remarks that we should look collectively at how we can work on those things, and I agree. Perhaps the test for the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution, when the budget is announced in a couple of weeks’ time, will be to ensure that there are no further cuts to the sports budget like those that we have seen since the Commonwealth games, and that instead we recognise how important sport is to all those wider Government objectives.

We move to the closing speeches. I call Jackie Baillie. Can I have a speech shorter than four minutes, please?

16:47  

I shall be quick, then. I thank the cabinet secretary for making this one of the shortest debates in the Parliament, and I will gently observe that when it comes to the cabinet secretary it appears that the mere prospect of losing a vote in this chamber has him on the run.

His usual answer for everything is to say that he cannot possibly tell us anything until the budget is announced on 14 December, but clearly he has changed his mind, and I very much welcome his making the right decision yesterday. Of course, he will say that his announcement had nothing at all to do with today’s debate, and of course we believe him. Although I might enjoy teasing the cabinet secretary, at the end of the day the right conclusion has been reached. I will, however, put him on notice, because the temptation to lodge a series of motions that would enjoy majority support in the chamber during the budget is too strong to resist, and I look forward to the cabinet secretary responding positively.

Members across the chamber have been contacted by their local leisure trusts. I was approached by the West Dunbartonshire Leisure Trust and by Live Argyll.

Will the member give way?

Not in the time available.

Both those organisations were genuinely concerned about the impact of paying business rates on the services that they provide. I know that leisure trusts across Scotland were facing the possibility of closing facilities, raising prices, reducing hours and even making staff redundant. They are both relieved and grateful for the decision made by the cabinet secretary to continue their exemption from non-domestic rates.

The cabinet secretary has, however, been silent on other recommendations that he believed required further consideration and engagement. Has he reached a view on private schools or on empty properties? Will he increase the large business supplement again in this budget, and will he tell us now?

Will the member give way?

Rather than telling us now, he can do it in his closing contribution, because the Presiding Officer has told me that I do not have time.

I suspect that, in his closing contribution, he will actually give us that gentle refrain that we always hear: that he cannot reveal anything until the budget. He has clearly made a decision on part of the non-domestic rates package, however, so why not on the rest?

Will the member give way?

Perhaps the cabinet secretary should listen to what I am saying, because it is a package. I remember the cabinet secretary saying that the Barclay review would be cost neutral when it started. He repeated that in the chamber on 6 September when he made his statement to Parliament. So far, he has announced the giveaways—the good stuff—but he has not told us how he will raise the income to keep it cost neutral. I look forward to his closing contribution telling us that. I want to know whether he is proposing that the balancing funding, which must be in excess of £120 million per year, should come from the areas that he is still to consider. If so, that is some burden.

The money matters to businesses and organisations that need to plan for increases, and to local authorities that rely on the income. The cabinet secretary needs to tell us whether he is going to stick to the outcome of Barclay being revenue neutral or whether he will forgo vital resources and cut local government even further than he is already planning to do.

He should tell us in his closing contribution. He might want to continue to hide behind his mantra that all will be revealed in the budget, but I am asking him about a principle. Will the outcome of the Barclay report, when implemented by the cabinet secretary, be revenue neutral for the coming financial year, yes or no?

I am always happy to welcome ministerial announcements that give hard-pressed organisations a financial break—for goodness sake, we all are—but it shows arrogance on the part of the cabinet secretary for him to simply pick and mix what he tells the chamber. SNP and Labour members are rightly pursuing the Tory Government about transparency in the European Union negotiations. Perhaps the cabinet secretary should start closer to home and provide transparency to this Parliament now.

I call Derek Mackay. We will see whether the cabinet secretary knows what “shorter than four minutes” means.

16:52  

I will do my best, Presiding Officer. I am in your hands.

I welcome this constructive and consensual debate in which the Parliament has united—we have united! Even Jackie Baillie has had to compliment me. What she said was as close to a compliment as Jackie Baillie gets.

Aileen Campbell covered many of the benefits of the decision, as have many other members, to be fair. Those who are interested in the decision have also welcomed it warmly.

A key Barclay recommendation that members also welcomed was that if the Government was to make substantive changes to non-domestic rates, it should consult first. We agreed that that is an important principle and that is exactly what I did as finance secretary in the Scottish Government. It is therefore hardly a U-turn in Scottish Government policy when it never was Government policy. It was an independent panel’s recommendation for us to consider.

I engaged, consulted and considered. Some members have asked why I consulted; it was within the spirit of the Barclay report to engage on such matters. In his thoughtful contribution, Andy Wightman made the point that if we ever want to change anything, we should do an impact assessment, and that is exactly what I have been engaged in. It included stakeholders, trusts, ALEOs, councils, COSLA and political colleagues such as Bob Doris, who took an interest as the convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee. I also listened closely to the members’ business debate that we had on the issue and, at that point, I said that the matter was not concluded and that what I heard would feed into my thinking.

Stop press! Minister listens, engages and responds constructively and positively!

On that point, cabinet secretary.

I do not have enough time

I listened closely to what the Greens and Labour said about the particular ALEO model, which is why I have said that we have to draw a line. Some local authorities were engaging in the concept of putting school gym halls into this status to avoid paying non-domestic rates. There were a range of reasons for us to consider at what point it was appropriate to say, “No further” and also for us to give stability and continuity to those trusts that are delivering operations right now.

There have been arguments about who should take credit for this decision. I see that Richard Leonard is not in the chamber.

Will the member take an intervention?

I do not have time. I will try if I have a minute left.

This decision was, of course, about engagement and about listening to the impact and responding appropriately. I say gently to the Conservative members: when they speak about sport and culture, are they not aware of the downturn in lottery resources that is impacting on sport and culture organisations across the country? They have failed to address that issue. I said that I was listening and engaging and that is exactly what I have done.

Barclay had revenue neutrality as a remit, but we can clearly look at the totality of resources to arrive at the right decisions around the right thing to do for non-domestic rates. This debate has been quite a mature one, but it has flushed out once again that the Opposition parties—particularly the Tory party—know how to spend money, but they have no idea how to raise revenue for our public services. I say to everyone in the chamber—touching on the point that Tavish Scott made—that I said that I would listen to everyone in the chamber. I look forward to the budget on 14 December, and here is yet another reason to back it.

16:56  

After the previous two speeches, I was not sure whether peace on earth had come early to the Parliament, but the speeches then developed one or two critical points. I will not enter the earlier debate between my colleague Murdo Fraser and Derek Mackay about either Speedos or squirrels.

It is good that the Government has listened to the views of the Opposition parties and of the ALEOs that would have been affected by this decision and has come to the chamber on the back of my members’ business debate, which gave members of different parties across the chamber the opportunity to express their views on the consequences for ALEOs if Barclay recommendation 24 was implemented. The message was loud and clear: removing charitable relief from ALEOs would have inflicted devastating cuts on vital facilities and lifeline services in our communities. Those organisations have sat somewhat uneasy for the past couple of weeks awaiting this decision, which I am sure that they welcome—as do we on these benches.

At the heart of the Barclay review, as has been commented on, was a misunderstanding about the purpose of those ALEOs and an idea that they were involved in tax avoidance in the commonly understood sense. As has happened in the debate, it has been good to remind ourselves of the services that are delivered by them. In my region, Edinburgh Leisure’s community access programme provides free leisure cards to partner organisations that work with some of the most vulnerable people in society. The goal is

“to promote positive partnerships to create opportunities for everyone to get active”.

That is an example of the sort of programme that was potentially under threat. That is the sort of programme—and, indeed, a triumph of the Scottish Government’s policy objectives as stated—that we all agree with.

Another example was West Lothian Leisure’s Xcite, which has numerous programmes that could have been affected, including free swimming—I fear that neither Murdo Fraser nor Derek Mackay could benefit from that scheme as it is for those aged over 60 or under five. For those who do benefit, it is a crucial programme to help keep people active and in good health.

All in all, this is a welcome decision by Derek Mackay. Rate relief not being removed will mean that, as Robin Strang of Xcite in West Lothian Leisure said, many thousands of people in our communities will not lose their only connection to physical activity and social inclusion. We are agreed upon that.

In closing, I ask Derek Mackay whether he has any further news on recommendation 27 in the Barclay review, because that would affect community sports clubs that I have visited in Lothian, which operate in a not-for-profit way. Again, they provide services not just to those who come to them but to local state schools; they provide playing fields free of charge. That recommendation would have an impact on them, so I would be interested to hear Derek Mackay’s response on that particular recommendation, which I do not think he has yet clarified—no doubt, he will very shortly do so.