Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks very much. Unless anybody else is particularly keen to come in, I am happy to leave it there, convener.

I am always happy to be provoked, especially in such a respectful manner.

On the point about singling out shooting estates and treating them differently from any other business, as I said when talking about the proposal, we already treat different businesses differently. A range of businesses are exempt from the small business bonus scheme—for example, payday lenders—so the measure would not be singling out shooting estates; it would just move them from one category to another. I accept that it is the category of businesses that we are of the view are less desirable or less deserving of rates relief, but the proposal would not single out shooting estates and separate them from everyone else. It would move them from one list to another existing list.

It was probably down to the speed at which I speak, which is not helpful for clarity.

The point that I was making is that it is normal legislative practice to set definitions around categories for the valuation roll. In this case, in relation to the issue that was highlighted by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, we could clarify that a little further, which would allow us to achieve the policy intention. Amendment 480 would prevent shooting estates from receiving NDR relief. The intention behind amendments 479 and 480 is to remove the previously cited barriers, and I will move them in order to clarify the Scottish Government’s position on the policy intention. As an alternative to amendment 480, the Government could use its existing powers to exempt shooting estates as a category from the small business bonus scheme, as it has done with payday lenders and others.

Amendments 481 to 483 intend to ensure that more of Scotland’s land is entered on the roll and that all land that ought to be entered is listed on it. Amendment 483 would require ministers to introduce regulations to ensure that all landholdings are entered onto the valuation roll, subject to half a dozen exemptions. That would end the current system of large-scale exemptions from enrolment for whole-use types, such as agricultural land and fish farms. At this point, it is worth emphasising that that would not mean that all currently exempt land would be required to start paying non-domestic rates, but the land would need to be on the valuation roll. Ministers and the Parliament would have the choice as to whether or not rates should be charged in the normal way.

Amendment 482 would require assessors to be notified at the point of transfer of a landholding, which would allow them to enter any outstanding landholdings on the valuation roll. Amendment 481 would set a deadline of four years from royal assent for local authorities to ensure that all relevant landholdings are entered on the roll, with a requirement for ministers to ensure that they get the support that they need in order to do so, for example, through the provision of a rateable value finder product. Those amendments deliver on recommendations 11 and 28 of the Barclay review. They seek to improve the transparency of the valuation roll and the non-domestic rates system and to prevent tax evasion by omission from the roll, which would provide a more complete picture of all property and land in Scotland. The financial benefits that landowners receive from the Government could be quantified and better understood by other ratepayers, policymakers and the general public. Not all Scotland’s land is on the valuation roll. Domestic dwellings are on separate valuation lists for council tax, and huge amounts of land are listed on neither of those lists, leading to a lack of transparency in the system of land ownership, particularly in the light of moves elsewhere to the cadastral system of land registration.

Amendment 483 delivers on the Barclay review’s recommendation to end the broad exemptions from enrolment on the valuation roll, with exceptions for domestic dwellings, as well as the likes of embassies, because they are covered by treaties, and areas of property and land that would never be taxed, such as public roads and bridges. The Government’s response to the Barclay review’s recommendation on that was to say that there were not any plans to levy rates on the currently exempt classes, such as agricultural land and fish farms, but that is a separate issue to the requirement for those properties to be on the roll in the first place. Even if the enrolment does not change tax income, as the properties would be enrolled and then relieved of liability, the reform would provide clarity and transparency in the system.

Amendment 482 seeks to reduce the number of landholdings that ought to be on the valuation roll but are not currently, and amendment 481 adds a backstop of four years to ensure that that is delivered. Amendment 484 would empower local authorities to impose a surcharge on non-domestic rates for vacant and derelict land in addition to that. That would build on the 2023 devolution of non-domestic rates empty property relief and would deliver on recommendation 26 of the Barclay review.

The theme of my amendments is that I am trying to implement a number of the Barclay review’s recommendations. The intention is for councils to be able to use tax powers to discourage land from standing derelict and, in turn, incentivise the disposal of the land and for it to be brought into productive use, which would contribute to local economies, rather than the land acting as a drag on them. Amendment 484 seeks to finish what was started when the Bute house agreement commitment delivered on the devolution of empty property relief. Since then, councils have been able to vary how generous and long lasting the reliefs are, which has allowed them to bring some vacant and derelict land back into public use. The Barclay review pointed out the absurdity of subsidising the costs of landowners who are sitting on non-productive land and allowing that to blight local communities. I think that we need to do the reverse and deliver on what the Barclay review pointed out.

Finally—you will be relieved to hear me say that, convener—amendment 485 is on a carbon emission land tax. The amendment would require ministers to launch a consultation on a carbon emission land tax within 90 days of royal assent, to be followed by the publication of proposals for that tax, and then a statement of ministerial intention to implement those proposals. The intention is to ensure that the consultation that the Government promised in April of last year takes place.

In autumn 2023, the Government confirmed plans to take forward a tax on land based on the emissions that the land releases. That delivers on a long-standing ask from the John Muir Trust and recognises that land use and land use change are some of the biggest contributors to Scotland’s emissions. In April 2024, the Government said that, during the summer, it would consult on the carbon emission land tax. That was the summer of 2024, and we are now getting into the summer of 2025 but the consultation still has not taken place.

Amendment 485 seeks to tie the Government to a swift timescale to get that important behaviour-change mechanism in place, or to be up front about the fact that that is no longer the Government’s policy position, presumably because of opposition from large landowners.

Is that an offer to engage in discussions, with a view, potentially, to lodging a stage 3 amendment that would address those concerns but would still achieve the policy objective, or is it an offer to address the issue outwith the bill? If the former, I would be happy not to move amendment 484 and to see whether we can get something agreed for stage 3.

The correspondence was sent to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Sorry, I referred in quick succession to the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government. I probably did not make that clear.

The cabinet secretary said that agreeing to the amendments might prejudge work that is going to take place. Can she outline specifically what work she is talking about and when it is going to happen? I have lodged the amendments, as she has indicated, because the Government has made commitments on this issue in recent years and yet, from what I have seen during my party’s time in Government and since, no progress has been made. I can understand that as an argument against amendment 480—and I would be happy not to move the amendment on that basis—but I do not understand it as an argument against amendment 479, which simply seeks to resolve the categorisation issue that the Government has already raised.

Yes.

The point is that it relates to my other amendments on making sure that agricultural land is on the valuation roll, and it is separate to the question whether agricultural land should be paying rates, which is a decision that can be taken at budget time through the regular processes.

I come at this from the position that all land should be on one roll or another, whether it be the NDR roll or the council tax roll. Amendment 479 seeks to separate out crofts, given that, as the Government has raised previously, quite a lot of the land that currently sits under the shootings category is, in fact, crofts. The amendment seeks to specify that separation.

My policy intention is to ensure that all land is on the roll, not that crofts start paying rates in a manner that is not intended. The default position should be that all land is on a roll. Decisions about the rates that you levy and the categories that you levy against are not for this legislation, but will be part of the regular process that will still happen through the budget.

I have enjoyed watching the stage 2 proceedings so far from my office and I was waiting to swoop in when the moment arose. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to my regional office receiving rates relief under the small business bonus scheme, which is somewhat relevant to some of the amendments that will come later on.

In lodging amendment 466, I am trying to require ministers to set a surcharge rate in the land and buildings transaction tax for transactions of large landholdings—that is, as the bill is currently drafted, landholdings that exceed 1,000 hectares. There is a regulation-making power in the amendment to vary the surcharge rate and the definition of a “large holding of land”. The intention of the amendment is to discourage the acquisition of large landholdings and to therefore encourage the break-up of large estates and reduce the concentration of land in very few hands.

The bill, particularly in relation to lotting arrangements, aims to promote the diversification of land ownership, with more people owning small landholdings and fewer people owning large ones. If that is the aim, we should be using more levers to achieve it, as Mercedes Villalba said. Our tax system is an obvious way in which we can achieve that.

Amendment 446 would mean that someone who buys up a large landholding would pay proportionately more than someone who buys a smaller one—not just more in absolute terms. That would prompt behavioural change, as it would discourage the acquisition of swathes of Scottish land by a wealthy few. Frankly, if you are in a position to buy up 1,000 hectares or more, you can likely afford to pay more in tax. Anyone who is not put off entirely would make a substantial but fair contribution to the funding of public services in Scotland. However, to be clear, the primary intention of the amendment is behavioural change, not revenue raising.

In the policy memorandum that accompanies the bill, which was published in March last year, the Government said:

“In relation to taxation, the Scottish Government is giving careful consideration to these complex matters and intends to explore them more fully as part of its commitment to producing a longer-term tax strategy.”

In December, the Government released its tax strategy, which specified one of the Government’s priorities as being

“Tax as a lever to encourage positive behavioural change”.

Specifically on land reform, the Government said:

“We are also taking forward work with the Scottish Land Commission to consider the role of taxation and fiscal interventions in supporting land reform and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from land.”

There is a positive intention but we have got ourselves trapped in a process of talking about having further discussions with key stakeholders and the issue never really moves forward. I have lodged these amendments to try to move the conversation on.

My amendments 479 and 480 are intended to prevent shooting estates from receiving non-domestic rates relief through the small business bonus scheme. Amendment 479 would mandate that assessors categorise crofts separately from shootings and amendment 480 would prevent landholdings that are listed as shootings from being eligible for rates relief.

Views on the value of shooting estates will vary across the committee and the Parliament. I would say that they are some of the least economically productive ways to use land, that there are vanishingly few jobs for the amount of land that is used and that they are ecologically totally counterproductive. They effectively create sterile monocultures by eradicating native wildlife that does not suit the purpose of hunting for sport what is usually a single species.

The small business bonus scheme gives rates relief to businesses on the premises’ rateable value. It is a blunt tool and it does not meaningfully target small businesses. There are hundreds of shooting estates across Scotland that get the small business bonus scheme relief and that is subsidising the operating costs of blood sports that contribute to the biodiversity crisis and the degradation of too much of rural Scotland.

In 2020, there was research that showed that nine out of 10 shooting estates received such relief, possibly up to a value of about £10.5 million. In 2023, ministers said they would consider the issue through their NDR reform work. In the Finance and Public Administration Committee and in a letter to the committee this January, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government again expressed interest in exploring ending rates relief for shootings and made clear her and the Government’s sympathy for the proposal.

However, she noted an implementation issue whereby crofts are listed on the valuation roll under shootings. That is where amendment 479 comes in, as it would require crofts to be categorised separately on the valuation roll. I note that section 75 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 inserted a requirement for shootings to be a specific valuation category. So, it is normal—

One of the areas on which I was proud to work with the cabinet secretary and her predecessor was the expansion of access to counselling in school for children and young people in Scotland. The Government produces a six-monthly report on that, which I think shows the success of the policy in meeting what was previously an unmet need. However, there has been an increasing delay in those six-monthly reports coming out; the most recent one that we have is for January to June 2023, which means that we have now got to the point where there is a 18-month or so delay before those reports are published. That makes it quite hard to scrutinise the implementation of the policy.

There is some really useful data in those reports. For example, the most recent one, from the first half of 2023, shows that twice as many girls are accessing counselling in school as boys. I would suggest that girls do not have twice the mental health issues that boys have and that there are other underlying factors that it would be worth our looking into.

If the cabinet secretary or her officials have the information to hand, that would be great, but given how specific my question is, I am not expecting that to be the case. Will the cabinet secretary look into why those reports have become so increasingly delayed that there is now an 18-month delay in the publication of the next one—at least, I hope that it is 18 months, as that would mean that the next one will be published soon—and look at whether we could significantly cut down that delay to ensure that we get more timely information, so that we can start to analyse the situation and look at what the barriers to access are?