Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is a significant amount of money in the system to fund apprenticeships. I would be interested to hear the position of principals and institution leaders. Is there a better-value way to deploy that money, whether through reform of the relationship with managing agents or through more direct funding? Andy Witty has laid out the sector’s position, which is that that is best done through the SFC.

Is that because of a lack of unanimity from everyone who would need to be around the table?

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

I have another question, which is on industrial relations, but if Wayne Powell wants to come in first, that would be great.

That is really useful—thank you.

I will condense my second question, which is on industrial relations in the college sector and which we could talk about all morning. I am interested in your thoughts on National Joint Negotiating Committee reform and the lessons that have been learned from the exercises that we have been through. There have been a number of exercises that have reflected on the NJNC structure, process and outcomes. In the latest exercise, there was a really long delay to get collective responses, and there has not been much progress since then.

I am interested in any brief reflections, not on why everything has happened, but on how we can move forward. Would structural reforms to the NJNC help, or are the issues that would ease the industrial relations challenges separate to that? Ultimately, it is about finances, but I am interested in the machinery of industrial relations and whether improvements could be made.

Good morning, everyone. As part of the committee’s evidence taking on the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, one of the more controversial bits of evidence—as you will probably have heard—was when one of the managing agents for apprenticeships confirmed that they take a 40 per cent cut of apprenticeship funding. That came after the college sector had given evidence on the bill.

Although we are now finished with hearing stage 1 evidence on that bill—and today’s discussion will not contribute to our report on it—it would still be useful to have on the record the position of colleges on how money in the apprenticeship system is best used. I would specifically like to hear your reaction to the confirmation that managing agents are taking a 40 per cent cut. There have been suggestions that it might be as high as 60 per cent in some cases.

I will start with Andy Witty for a sectorwide position.

I see that Vicki Nairn and Joanna Campbell want to come in, and they should feel free to do so. For the sake of time, I will condense my second question, because I think that the discussion is useful.

To oversimplify, can you give me a yes or no answer as to whether the tertiary education bill will improve the situation?

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.