³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

It would not be appropriate for me to speculate on hypotheticals as to what the outcome of any appeal might be. However, I am sure that, given the information that I have mentioned about there being more than 40,000 properties on appeal, I think that the member and the committee will be able to infer the potential magnitude and the impact that that could have.

Yes, there is a case in relation to fairness for ratepayers, and that is why it is appropriate that the issue is considered in the context of revaluation. There is also the need for greater certainty around public funds. Uncertainty in relation to the outcome of appeals can lead to uncertainty around public funds, too. There is a balanced approach, which is about fairness for ratepayers and about protecting public funds.

As the member will appreciate, there is a commitment in the programme for government, and the bill will be introduced in line with normal processes and procedures. As it will be primary legislation, it will go through the standard parliamentary procedure with three stages, and it will ultimately be for Parliament to determine how it wishes to scrutinise the bill. The options that normally apply to primary legislation will be available to the Parliament in making decisions.

Mr Coffey raises a very important point. In responding to it, I refer to the answer that I gave earlier about the engagement process, which is continuous. That is important, because it provides a forum in which businesses and representative organisations can raise specific issues in the context of the pandemic and the support that is required. Collectively, those views will inform the position that the Government will take. However, I am sure that Mr Coffey appreciates that the uncertainty about when we will receive that funding creates barriers to preparation. It is difficult to anticipate what the broader context will be when we receive that funding.

We continue to have engagement and dialogue with business, which is important in understanding what the needs of business are. That will, of course, inform future decisions that are taken.

As I said in my opening remarks, the rationale is about clarifying the measures in the 2020 act. As the committee will appreciate, a material change of circumstances is normally considered to involve quite specific, delineated local cases—arising from roadworks, for example—in which individual properties are impacted. That has to be viewed in the context of the broader principles that underpin the non-domestic rates system. A key principle is a regular cycle of revaluation, and broader market-wide changes should be considered as part of that cycle.

It is important to understand the context. We have moved from a five-year cycle to a three-year cycle and we have reduced the tone date to one year. That provides a more appropriate means of assessing any changes that have taken place as a result of market-wide effects.

I hope that that explains the position. I reiterate that the order seeks to clarify what was intended with the measures that were introduced through the 2020 act.

[Inaudible.]

As you will be aware, we support assessors in carrying out their job. I ask Anouk Berthier to provide some detail on the matter.