Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the minister give way?

Despite the handful of fairly robust exchanges this afternoon—which I thought took the SNP by surprise a little bit—we can all agree that some basic principles are required to make this policy work well.

First, community engagement must be strong and based on an approach that includes the views of local people and that establishes mutual trust. Both those points matter in tandem. How often have local communities encountered difficulties when their views have been undermined? My colleague Finlay Carson pointed out that, when developers put their claim on various community assets, the Scottish Government often supports the developers and overturns community projects. For example, since 2017, the Scottish Government has overturned 383 of 824 planning applications, so there is a real need to build trust in a level playing field and to appreciate the vast wealth of local knowledge, which can often go a very long way in ensuring that local communities make the best use of their potential.

Secondly, in relation to employment, investment and growth, the community wealth ambitions can complement those of the levelling up agenda. I think that Daniel Johnson said that it is about substitution. No, it is not; they complement one another. Indeed, I would argue that, together, they are the essential components of exactly the same policy ambitions. It is important to stress that, especially at a time of considerable financial stringency, the general public desperately want the Westminster Government, the Holyrood Government and local government to work together. They are tired of the endless bickering and sniping; they just want things getting done to benefit their local communities.

The public also want to know that they are getting value for money. Audit Scotland has come back to that point many times in recent months, because, as yet, there is not sufficient transparency, accountability and scrutiny when it comes to how money is spent.

I do not entirely agree, because some money has been provided. Various members have given examples of some money having been committed. However, Daniel Johnson is right that we do not have enough detail, as he said in his speech. We need much more detail. However, Audit Scotland persistently makes the point that we are not able to scrutinise exactly where money is being spent. Daniel Johnson sits on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, as do I, and the Scottish Government must address that big issue.

I will also say something about the evidence that the Finance and Public Administration Committee has taken about the national performance framework during recent weeks. The NPF is very different in scope to the community wealth initiative, but it also has the improvement of wellbeing in our local communities at its heart. Therein lies a big challenge: the principles of the framework are all agreed, but the practice of delivery is a very different matter.

One of the most interesting points that has been mentioned by many of the stakeholders who have given evidence to our committee, is this: how can a national framework function effectively at the same time as ensuring that there is diversity in local delivery? There is a dilemma about how we manage state objectives alongside local priorities. On two occasions, the committee was told that the debate is more about how far the state should intervene and not countermand local, individual initiatives. That dilemma has to be addressed.

Very senior people in local government told us that there are already some good lines of communication among local authorities about sharing good practice across communities, but that there is also an understanding that what works well in one community might not be successful in another. That is another reason why we need flexibility and diversity, and it is a strong message, because if you want to drive success you have to promote the devolution of power to local communities. Get big Government out of the way, as well as people who are interfering in what local communities want to do and know how to do best.

We agree that a government policy framework that supports the creation of jobs, local investment, economic growth and the infrastructure that Brian Whittle spoke about so eloquently, needs to be provided. If that infrastructure is not there—if we do not have sports communities and local infrastructure to get people to specific places—we can forget about community empowerment.

Much of this is based on the increasing willingness of people to be part of their community—to shop and procure basic provisions locally and to use local services. During the pandemic, that happened out of necessity, but we need to ensure that that shift is permanent. We need to do that not only because it is of considerable benefit to those running local businesses, but also because of demographic movement. We know first hand from Scottish Fiscal Commission statistics that Scotland has major challenges with demographic imbalance, and anything that we can do to help local communities become more vibrant and help our more deprived and remote areas is good news. If local businesses flourish, so does the local population, who will be encouraged to stay.

Yesterday, the Finance and Public Administration Committee took evidence from local government—just as we did in Glasgow and Dundee a few weeks ago—and the strong message that emanates from local government is that local people need to decide on their own future. Ring fencing should be used less, so that there is more flexibility and autonomy for local authorities to spend money in line with their priorities and what they know works best. In his opening speech, Douglas Lumsden set out that local government funding is critical to this area of policymaking because, if we constrain that funding, the autonomy of local government becomes a serious issue.

Fiona Hyslop seemed very surprised by Willie Rennie’s intervention, but he is right: there are so many important things that we need to spend time debating. In his speech, he mentioned railways, ferries and, I think, BiFab—and I agree with him absolutely, but this is important, too—

I will not, because I think that I need to finish. Do I?

The minister is quite right about some of the really good things that are happening across the areas that he has mentioned. However, does he accept the very strong points that Audit Scotland recently made about the importance of transparency over where that money is being spent and the extent to which the projects are delivering? Delivery has to be very clearly measured so that the public can actually see what benefits have been accruing to them.

Sorry, Ms Hyslop.

We need to debate those things, but the debate would benefit greatly from some of the greater detail that the Scottish Government has promised. The Scottish Conservatives are content to support the motion, but our support is contingent on ensuring that there is an infrastructure around the policy to make it work well, so that it can complement so many other policies. I do not think that the public cares whether that comes from Westminster, Holyrood or local government; they just want it to work.

To ask the Scottish Government how it will respond to the United Kingdom Government’s consultation, launched on 9 May, regarding the proposed expansion of its warm home discount scheme. (S6O-01096)

I understand that the uplift will mean that rebates are provided to an additional 50,000 families in Scotland, on top of the 230,000 who already receive payments.

Will the minister confirm that the Scottish Government will not in any way disrupt the additional payments, which could be of considerable importance to families throughout Scotland, including in Mid Scotland and Fife?

Mr Ewing is on fine form in the chamber these days, which must be because he is free of his ministerial shackles. He entertains us on a regular basis. He made an important point that the debate is for anoraks but it is nonetheless an important one. He is absolutely spot on. One could easily argue about the complexities and the difficulties of the debate, but it really matters, especially if we are going to help businesses get back on their feet and recover from what many inside the community say has been the most difficult period in their history. It is wholly understandable that Covid-19 has created numerous concerns for businesses, not least because of the effect of the virus and the accompanying restrictions on the ways that they have had to reorganise themselves.

Of course, that has had huge implications for the rateable value of many properties. In turn, it is not at all surprising that there have been a large number of material change in circumstance appeals lodged on the grounds of, for example, social distancing measures, increased home and hybrid working, or, in many cases, the requirement to actually close down businesses altogether, which has sometimes been temporary but sometimes has not. All of those have had huge implications for property valuations, and we have to be cognisant of the fact that that is very serious for a range of businesses.

When he was speaking on behalf of the Conservatives at the start of the debate, Miles Briggs made the point that the number of appeals related to the pandemic is just under 50,000, which is obviously a huge increase in comparison to 2018-19, when, if my memory is correct, the total was something around the 5,700 mark. That is a huge difference, and the Scottish Government—quite rightly, in my opinion—concluded that the majority of those appeals relate specifically to the implications of the Covid pandemic. We are keen to support the Scottish Government on that basis.

The just under 50,000 properties that are the subject of appeals have a combined rateable value of £3,929 million, which corresponds to an estimated total of £1,117 million in net rates income in 2021, so we are obviously not talking about low levels of money. That is why the legislation is so very important.

As others have mentioned, if the bill is passed, it will mean that no account can be taken of any matters relating to coronavirus when determining the net annual rateable value of non-domestic property. That means that, for any appeals that are lodged, a change in rateable value could not be considered on the ground that the value of the property has been affected by the coronavirus pandemic, with effect from 2 April 2020.

The Scottish Government, like the UK Government, is absolutely right to be of the opinion that any impact on rental value arising from Covid-19 or the restrictions forms part of the general market conditions and therefore should be considered as part of the wider revaluation. Martin Whitfield and Fergus Ewing raised important points about the engagement process that has to take place. That is essential, and it is quite right that if appeals on the ground of Covid-19 were permitted in relation to material changes of circumstances, rateable value would have to change constantly, which is surely neither sensible nor practical.

There is widespread agreement on the principles of the bill. The fact that no significant issues were raised in the submissions suggests that there is also widespread support for the bill across the business sector. What is interesting—this has come out in the debate this afternoon—is that the general discussions about the bill have revealed other issues.

My colleague Douglas Lumsden made interesting points about what has happened in the north-east. Twice this afternoon, Alex Rowley raised serious questions about what is happening in our high streets and the planning that goes alongside that. We have had comments about the Barclay review—its intentions and implications—and Miles Briggs referred to the fact that perhaps we need to review the appeals process.

Of course, the bill has reignited the debate about future reform of non-domestic rates, especially that it is an outdated and overly complex system that is tied up with far too much red tape, and the debate will, no doubt, continue. As we approach revaluation—pandemic permitting—it is in no one’s interest to delay reform for too long. The consideration of reform is as important as the revaluation. As Liz Cameron quite rightly said to the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the current business rates system is just “not fit for purpose”. She made the point that the pandemic has done untold damage to our high streets, so reform is desperately needed to breathe new life into local economies.

Returning to business post-pandemic is, of course, not going to look like business before the pandemic. She is right to argue for simplification of what is a highly complicated system. I think that David Lonsdale also made that point yesterday at the Economy and Fair Work Committee, and I am sure that there is a debate in there for another day. However, the bill has reminded us of the deep-seated concerns of the business community, and we really cannot ignore those for too much longer.

Likewise, to accompany the discussions that are taking place in the Finance and Public Administration Committee about the impending fiscal framework renegotiation, there is discussion about what constitutes fair taxation. Ariane Burgess mentioned the principles of fair tax and the principles of Adam Smith, but I think that we have to apply those principles with a more modern approach. The Finance and Public Administration Committee and perhaps the Economy and Fair Work Committee have to be very keen to do that as quickly as is possible.

I will sum up by saying that we welcome this afternoon’s debate. We see it as essential to the business community, and I repeat that the Scottish Conservatives will support the motion.

The minister is absolutely right—I am sure that members would have lots of debates about what is the right tax and what the levels of taxation should be. However, does he agree that the biggest complaint from a lot of the business community concerns the complexity of the system? They are seeking considerable simplification of a lot of the tax measures. Does the minister see that as an important part of the consultation? It does not matter what political flavour we might discuss; does the minister accept that that is the key issue for a lot of businesses?