���˿���

That consequential was contingent upon the passing of the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021, which has happened since I was most recently before the committee to talk about this matter. That funding is included and committed as part of the budget process for the forthcoming year.

We have undertaken not to wait but to provide support in advance, so we provided the £375 million of support in relation to omicron to which I referred. The key point that I come back to is that, overall, our spending on business support equates to £4.5 billion, which is over £400 million more than we have received in consequentials. Therefore, even including the money to which you referred, in supporting businesses, we have gone above and beyond what was allocated to us via UK consequentials. The most recent element of that was distributed through a tranche of £80 million to local authorities, which I touched on.

We have not hung about. We have been working to get the money to businesses as and where it is needed through a range of methods, whether by grants and support for specific sectors, such as wholesale or taxi drivers, or through discretionary funding for local authorities that they can use to support businesses in their areas in the way that they think is most appropriate.

To be clear on that, Mr Coffey, as I understand it, the consequential was contingent on the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill being passed. It has now been transferred and incorporated into our existing spending plans.

The point that I am making is that, overall, it is important to look at the money that is made available to us via the Barnett formula in a broader context. With Barnett, you have to look at what the net amount is. Sometimes, a particular budget line can be identified as increasing but the net amount is reducing because of reductions in other budget lines. It can create a complex set of circumstances in which to operate.

Although that money has been received as part of the budget process, the key message that I want to convey is that we went above and beyond what we received in business support consequentials.

As I have said, we have spent £4.5 billion. The money that we have delivered is for a range of measures, from tailored packages of support for particular sectors to the 100 per cent RHL relief that we have had in the previous financial year and this financial year. We are delivering 50 per cent RHL relief for the first three months of the next financial year to avoid the cliff edge, we have delivered support for local government, and we have delivered £80 million for discretionary support. We have delivered in a range of ways—rates relief, sector-specific grants and discretionary funding for local government—and gone above and beyond the resource that was allocated to us, including the MCC consequentials to which you referred.

We will all agree that, given the unpredictable nature of appeals, there is no guarantee that any outcomes would be fair. The Scottish Government’s approach to supporting businesses over the past two years of the pandemic has sought to focus on delivering support to where it is most needed. As I have stated, we have provided in the region of £4.5 billion of support to businesses in Scotland, which is more than £400 million more than we received in consequentials from the UK Government, and as recently as December, we announced a £375 million support package in the wake of the emergence of the omicron variant. That has been delivered in tranches, the last of which was £80 million in discretionary support, which will be available for local authorities to administer in their own areas. That allows for a much more bespoke, tailored and needs-based approach to business support. The issue with MCC appeals is not only their unpredictability but the timescales involved, and our focus is on getting support to businesses as quickly as possible.

An important point, which is pertinent to the line of questioning that Mr Dey just pursued, is that the bill will not remove any existing appeal rights—those rights will not be impacted. The bill will provide certainty and clarity about the definition of a material change in circumstances.

The policy intent was clear when Parliament passed the 2020 act. As the order that was made last autumn did, the bill will provide clarity, as I said.

On the point about being retrospective, the bill will not remove any appeal rights—it will provide clarity about the definition of a material change of circumstances. It is for individual appellants to consider whether they wish to appeal—[Inaudible.]—or to withdraw their appeal. That will not change; the bill just provides clarity about the definition of an MCC.

Any provisions that have retrospective effect must be given careful consideration. Our approach to tax is informed by our tax framework, which we published alongside the budget. That gives the best overview of how we will seek to proceed. Part of that is to have continuous engagement and dialogue. Our approach is also underpinned by the Adam Smith principles.

That informs our approach to taxation. As for any unknown unknowns and future hypotheticals, I do not want to speculate, other than to say that decisions about taxation policy are informed by and will be consistent with what we have set out in the tax framework.

What we are doing, ultimately, is clarifying an existing provision in the 2020 act. The previous order sought to clarify what that provision meant in practice; what we are doing with this legislation is, effectively, what we could not do through subordinate legislation alone, which is to put the date back a year. It is important to note that the date that the legislation refers to—2 April 2020—is the date when the power in the 2020 act came into force. Of course, there was also an opportunity during the passage of the 2020 act to consider its policy intentions. The order and the bill are designed to provide greater clarity and certainty, which I assume is something that would be welcomed.

The question of resource helped to inform the decision that I referred to in my opening statement on the extension of the disposal deadline through the legislation that will be introduced shortly. That will provide opportunity for appellants to consider the progress of this bill through Parliament and decide whether it should inform their future decisions. It also helps to address the issue of pressures faced by assessors.

We are taking that approach in the subordinate legislation that we will introduce to allow more time for appellants and users of the system to consider their position in the light of how Parliament progresses the bill. Obviously, that has the knock-on effect of helping to support assessors and free up resource.

I recognise that we have a tone date in two weeks’ time and that there is a revaluation process under way. I take your point regarding assessors’ resource and capacity, which is why I took the opportunity to inform the committee of the legislation that will be introduced. As I said, there are two aspects to the approach, one of which will be supporting assessors’ capacity management.

That is a fair question, Mr Griffin. Of course, we have to recognise the independence of assessors and valuation appeal committees and, ultimately, how they choose to manage their workload and proceed is a matter for independent assessors.

Where we have sought to help is by extending the deadline by one year so that there is no longer a statutory requirement for disposal by the end of this year. As I said in my opening statement, given that 105 days’ notice is required for citation, a deadline of 31 December 2022 would mean that a case would need to be referred to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland by the end of June. The deadline might be 31 December, but we are only three and a half months away from the end of June, which creates more immediate and proximate pressure.

By extending the deadline we have increased capacity and space, so to speak, for assessors. However, the way that they manage their workload and how valuation appeal committees operate are matters for them as independent bodies. As a minister, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to say anything that could be misconstrued as commentary on how those bodies carry out their functions independently.

I know that that point was conveyed in written evidence to the committee. Although I recognise the concerns about that, the key point of setting the date to 2 April is to be consistent with what was in the 2020 act.

The point I have sought to make in my responses to all of the questions that I have answered this morning is that this legislation is about providing clarity and certainty. That is why it is very important that this bill aligns with the 2 April 2020 date that was in the 2020 act. Although I recognise that there are concerns, the reasoning and rationale behind setting the date at 2 April are very important, and that is why that date is in the bill that is before us today.

As I attempted to convey when I was before the committee last November, we sought to clarify the definition of

“a material change of circumstances”

in the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 2020, and the bill seeks to further clarify what we mean by that term. That is the bill’s primary driver: it provides that clarity and certainty for the users of the non-domestic rates system.

Of course, public finances are a consideration, too, and the bill’s financial memorandum illustrates particular scenarios and the potential impact on those finances. Were that impact to materialise, it would have to be factored into how we manage our budget, year in and year out. The key point that I come back to is that, fundamentally, there is uncertainty about the outcome of appeals on the basis of a material change of circumstances, their duration and any potential impact on ratepayers or the public finances.

Effectively, the reasons that I gave for introducing the Valuation and Rating (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Order 2021 back in November apply to the bill. I am conscious that, at stage 1, we consider the general principles of legislation. When the order that was before the Parliament in November was agreed, there was recognition of the general principle of the need to clarify and provide certainty around material changes in circumstances as being clearly delineated, local and specific, and recognition of the fact that broader considerations with regard to the general economy were best captured through revaluation. As a result, we changed the revaluation process from a five-year to a three-year cycle and put in place a tone date that precedes revaluation by a single year to ensure that revaluation means that rateable values and net annual values are more reflective of the market at the time that they are introduced.

I hope that that helps to clarify the intent behind the bill.