 The next item of business is a debate on motion 4162 in the name of Tom Arthur on non-domestic rates coronavirus Scotland Bill. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request to speak buttons now, and I call on Tom Arthur to speak to and move the motion up to nine minutes, minister. I am pleased to open the stage 1 debate on the non-domestic rates coronavirus Scotland Bill, which was introduced to the Scottish Parliament on 14 December 2021. Non-domestic rates play a key role in balancing the need to deliver a competitive and sustainable tax environment, while ensuring that we have sufficient resources to fund public services. The aim of this bill is to deliver fairness to all-rate pairs by ensuring that any effects of Covid-19 are considered for all properties at revaluation, rather than run through the use of material change of circumstances provisions. Outside of revaluation, the rateable value or net annual value of a property can be amended, for instance, to reflect material changes of circumstances. A material change of circumstances is typically a physical change to a property, such as an extension or a demolition, or it could be a major change in a specific area where the property is located, such as the tramworks in Edinburgh. Under the non-domestic rates Scotland Act 2020, the definition of material change of circumstances was amended with effect from 2 April 2020 to exclude changes in general economic circumstances. That reflected the fact that we are moving to three-year revaluation cycles and a one-year tone date, which will allow valuations in future to be more closely aligned to current market values, removing the need for appeals on the basis of a change to general economic circumstances. Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, more than 40,000 peels have been lodged on non-domestic properties. At this point in the revaluation cycle, the abnormal spike indicates that most were lodged because of the pandemic. We do not believe that the material change of circumstances provisions are appropriate in relation to Covid-19. Any impact on rental values arising from Covid-19 or Covid-19 restrictions forms part of general market conditions and therefore should be considered at revaluation when all relevant impacts on values across all properties will be taken into account. That is a view shared by the UK Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We announced on 24 June 2021 that we intended to take measures to rule out Covid-19 appeals. I am most grateful to the minister for taking invention. The minister has made it clear that, in the next revaluation, the impacts of Covid-19 that may have occurred on the longer term can be taken into account as part of the general market overall situation. Will he encourage the assessors, who are independent, to engage with industry sectors who believe that they have been impacted severely by Covid and for a long time to make sure that the assessors are aware of the serious factors that are extremely important in arriving at the correct rate of values? Mr Ewing is absolutely correct to recognise the independence of assessors, but we all recognise the significant impact that Covid has had on general and prevailing economic conditions and continues to have. I have no doubt that all of us in all of our roles and responsibilities across society in Scotland will take that into account. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Economy, the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise and myself carried out an extensive consultation and engagement exercise with all major business representative bodies over summer 2021. Those meetings provided an opportunity to discuss our approach to supporting business during the pandemic and its priorities in the recovery period. The matter of those appeals was not raised as a substantial concern. The bill builds on the valuation and rating coronavirus Scotland Order 2021 that came into force on 1 December 2021. The order specifies that, in calculating the rateable value of properties in the 2017 valuation role, no account can be taken of any matter arising on or after 1 April 2021 that is directly or indirectly attributable to Covid-19. Primary legislation is, one moment please, however required to go back further and to extend the rule to net annual value from which rateable values are derived. I am happy to take an intervention. I am very grateful for the intervention. Is it not also right that, during that consultation, the specific intentions of the bill were not raised with industry and other stakeholders? We have had a process of engagement that we announced on 23 June last year. We also had the order that went before the committee in which it could only go back so far with secondary legislation to April 2021. Primary legislation is required to go back further, so there was a process of engagement with business that there was a work that the parliamentary committee undertook. We also undertook to do partial bria as well. There has been considered work that has went into ensuring that business has been engaged and consulted, and the views of business have been taken into account. We need to make some progress. The bill under discussion today provides that, in calculating the net annual value or rateable value in relation to any property in the 2017 valuation role, no account can be taken of any matter arising on or after 2 April 2020 that is directly or indirectly attributable to Covid-19. This date aligns with the date from which the definition of material change of circumstances was clarified by the non-domestic rates Scotland Act 2020. The bill does not apply to changes to the physical state of a property or where a property should or should not be included in the valuation role. For instance, if someone started working from home as a result of the pandemic, nor does it remove the right of appeal. Rather, it will provide clarity, consistency and fairness to all ratepayers by ensuring that any effects of Covid-19 are considered for all properties at the next revaluation in 2023. In fact, we are intending to delay the disposal deadlines for appeals by one year to 31 December 2023 so that appellants who made a Covid appeal can make an informed decision once Parliament has finished considering this bill as to whether they wish to pursue or withdraw the appeal. Although appeals have been submitted for over 40,000 properties, this is less than one-fifth of all non-domestic properties in Scotland. As the Federation of Small Businesses has pointed out previously, not many small businesses are among them. The bill may reflect our generous support package for small businesses, but it likely also reflects that well-resourced, professionally advised property owners and occupiers are more likely to know about the material change of circumstances provision and therefore to have appealed. Meanwhile, a large number of multinational firms that have been largely unaffected or potentially even successful during the pandemic have made appeals against their properties. This is a hugely complex issue and the outcome of any appeal is uncertain. It cannot be assumed that they would be successful. We believe that the right time for market-wide economic changes to be reflected is at revaluation. We are strengthening revaluations following the independent Berkeley review of non-domestic rates to ensure that they more closely reflect market circumstances. First, we are increasing the frequency of revaluations from five to three years and reducing the time between the tone date and revaluation. Secondly, we delayed the next revaluation by one year to 2023 and brought forward the commitment to a one-year tone date, which will be 1 April 2022, both measures that have been welcomed by the business community in Scotland. As we all know, Covid-19 has had a major impact on the economy. We responded swiftly and on an unprecedented scale to support business through the pandemic. Businesses have benefited from more than £4.6 billion of support since the start of the pandemic. That includes around £1.6 billion of Covid-related rates relief. For the past two years, we have provided 100 per cent retail hospitality leisure and aviation relief without no financial cap. We were the only Government in the UK to do that. We are preventing a cliff-edge return to full liability for businesses in the retail leisure and hospitality sectors by continuing relief at 50 per cent for the first three months of 2022-23, capped at £27,500 per rate player. I am grateful to the convener and members of the local government, housing and planning committee for their scrutiny of the bill. I welcome the committee's support for the general principles of the bill and have responded to the various issues that were raised in its report in writing. As the committee recognised, the realities of dealing with Covid-19 were challenging, and we had to act to mitigate the impact of large volumes of appeals on assessors and to protect the public finances more generally. We acted quickly to support the business community when it needed it most and to continue to support businesses through the pandemic. In closing, I would return to my opening comments that the bill seeks to ensure fairness for all Scottish ratepayers while maintaining the integrity of the non-domestic rate system, as well as the stability of public finances. Therefore, I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of non-domestic rates coronavirus of Scotland now. Members, I wish to be aware that there is time to give time back for interventions. I now call on Ariane Burgess on behalf of the local government, housing and planning committee. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the local government, housing and planning committee in this debate and to follow on from Mr Arthur's opening remarks. I thank the minister for responding to the points raised in our stage 1 report for providing a written response to our conclusions in advance of this debate. As noted by the minister, the primary purpose of this bill is to ensure that no account can be taken of any matter that is directly or indirectly attributable to coronavirus when calculating the rateable value of business premises for the period from 2 April 2020 to 1 April 2021. That is effectively an extension of changes made through the valuation and rating coronavirus Scotland Order 2021, which applied from 1 April 2021. Primary legislation was required to give effect to this extension as the order could not be applied retrospectively. In the absence of those legislative changes, the committee recognises the real risk that successful appeals would reduce non-domestic rates income and impact adversely. On public finances, and whilst we have no way of knowing what the outcome of such appeals might be, the bill's financial memorandum provides illustrative examples which show that a 50% reduction in rateable values could reduce council revenues by over £550 million and that even a 5% reduction would reduce revenues by £56 million. The committee appreciates that this bill, if passed, would protect council revenues and protect the Government from the risk that it would have to reimburse councils for lost income, resulting from reduced valuations on the basis of factors arising from the pandemic. That has been a slightly unusual stage 1 experience as our scrutiny of the bill has essentially repeated our previous scrutiny of the order in the autumn of last year. We gave detailed scrutiny to the order at that time and no new issues of significance arose in our evidence-taking on the bill. Nevertheless, I am grateful to those stakeholders who provided written evidence to the committee to assist our scrutiny and to the minister for his oral evidence. I would also like to thank other members of the committee for their constructive manner in which they approached our scrutiny of the bill. Turning to the bill itself, the committee recognises that the difficult realities of dealing with the economic impact of Covid have meant that the Government had little option other than to act, both to mitigate the impact of large volumes of appeals on assessors and to protect the public finances more generally. We received comments from some stakeholders about what they saw as a lack of consultation and engagement on the bill. The absence of a business regulatory impact assessment was also highlighted in written evidence. However, we understand that the Scottish Government's intentions were made clear in June last year and that the Government has engaged widely with the business community on its approach to supporting businesses through the pandemic. I thank the minister for confirming that a Bria had indeed been published, but I note that that only happened in late January, over six weeks after the bill was introduced and towards the end of our consultation period. I am grateful for that intervention. Was it not correct that, in both reports, which I complement the committee on their reports, there were concerns about the consultation in your earlier report regarding the order? Do you think that that was satisfactorily addressed between the order and the bill being presented to the committee? I thank you for that intervention. I think that, on behalf of the committee, we think that that point has been sufficiently addressed. During our scrutiny of the bill, we also considered the Government's approach to taxation based on Adam Smith's four principles of taxation. In addition to the principle of engagement, which I have already touched upon, we were particularly interested in the principle of certainty. In the wealth of nations, the Cercodi-born philosopher, who came to be known as the father of modern economics, wrote, the tax that each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid ought to all be clear and plain to the contributor and to every other person. The fact that this bill makes retrospective changes to tax policy by removing the rights of ratepayers to challenge their rateable value due to a material change of circumstances caused by public health emergencies measures appears to go against that principle. Indeed, stakeholders, including the Scottish Chamber of Commerce and the Scottish Property Federation, highlighted their strong opposition to the change in written evidence. The chamber of commerce, for example, described it as being completely at odds with key principles of certainty and fairness in a modern taxation system. The committee is clear that we would not want to see this policy decision as setting any kind of precedent in terms of retrospective changes, and we welcome the minister's assurances that the principles of certainty and engagement would underpin future non-domestic rates policies. However, as stated in my opening remarks, we also recognise that the challenging realities of dealing with Covid-19 left the Government with little option other than to act. We also welcome the decision to respond to what the minister described as stakeholders' key asks in avoiding a cliff edge on 31 March by maintaining a 50 per cent relief for the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors for a further three months. However, we are mindful that this relief only benefits certain sectors of the economy. We also heard from the minister that around £4.5 billion was provided in support to businesses during the pandemic and that this is something that we very much welcome. Turning to the issue of the workload of assessors, we note that over 40,000 material change of circumstances appeals have been lodged since the start of the pandemic. We welcome the Scottish Government's proposal to extend the disposal deadline from 31 December 2022 to 31 December 2023 and look forward to considering the relevant secondary legislation in the coming weeks. However, we remain concerned about the potential volume of work that assessors may face over the coming years. Although we appreciate that it is not for the Government to direct assessors on how they manage their workloads, we would welcome updates on the numbers of appeals that are withdrawn and of the overall volumes of material change of circumstance appeals that assessors have to dispose of. I thank the minister for confirming that his officials will explore with the Scottish Assessors Association how best this information can be provided. I will now draw my remarks to a close and I conclude by confirming that the committee recommends that Parliament support the general principles of the bill. I look forward to hearing other members' contributions to this debate and to further considering the bill at stage 2 in coming weeks. I thank the organisations that have contributed to the work of the local government, housing and planning committee and also to thank the clerks sitting right beside you for the work that they have helped us to put into this piece of legislation. As we emerge from the pandemic and the focus rightly shifts to the economic recovery that we need to see, it is important that we look at how we can create the most supportive and dynamic business environment. We are all acutely aware of the significant impact that the pandemic has had on businesses and equally on local government and the workload of assessors and the significant and unsustainable backlog that has built up during the pandemic. As has already been touched upon, during the pandemic there have been almost 50,000 in fact non-domestic rate appeals, 49,400. That compares to pre-pandemic levels when there were 5,774 appeals lodged. Scottish Conservatives therefore accept the main principles behind the bill to extend the rule to cover net annual value and rateable value and to cover the period back to April 2020, the date on which the Scottish Government amended the definition of material change of circumstances to exclude changes to economic circumstances. The bill is a sensible measure to update Scotland's non-domestic rates and appeals system, as we have already seen and heard that has taken place in England and Wales, to help to mitigate the impact of the pandemic. The local government committee agreed that because of the level of scrutiny of the order already taken place, an extensive programme of evidence taking was not therefore necessary. We have heard a number of views from stakeholders throughout this period as well, and it is clear that there is, though, need. I believe that the minister has taken on board a need to look at how we can improve the appeal system in Scotland. The minister has given assurances that the bill will not remove the right of appeal and has also confirmed that the Scottish Government intends to introduce legislation to extend the disposable deadline by a further year beyond 31 December of this year. The committee also highlighted the absence of a business regulator impact assessment. Unusily, the committee did not accompany the bill and is a departure from the Scottish Government's guidance. As the convener has already stated, the committee did say in our report that we would welcome assurances from the Scottish Government, and we have received those, but that does not set a precedent for future legislation being brought forward to Parliament. The UK and Scottish Governments have provided significant support to Scottish businesses throughout the pandemic. The UK Government provided 100 per cent rates relief for all eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and that has been extended by the Scottish Government. It is worth reflecting around £10 billion of funding in the year 2020-21. The Government also announced that it plans to extend schemes for an additional three months in 2021-20, two to 100 per cent, followed by a nine-month period of relief at 66 per cent, subject to cash cap for businesses. Taken together, the support measures for business rates relief have been worth up to £16 billion for retail, hospitality and leisure properties. During the consideration of the bill, I put on record my concerns around how some of the cases of support schemes and how they have been administered have not been transparent, and businesses have been reporting to all members of this Parliament various winners and losers during the access to the support schemes. The minister acknowledged that, although every Government was driving to get the money out to support businesses, how that was administered by different local authorities is something that we should pause and look at as well as part of that. Moving forward, it is important to look at how the Scottish Government intends to ensure that additional resources resulting from UK Government measures to support businesses will be targeted as well, especially to those most in need of support, particularly small and mid-sized enterprises. Turning to the important issue of support for businesses, SNP ministers offered rates relief for 50 per cent for retail, hospitality and leisure for only three months, and have capped that at £27,500. Scottish Conservatives have called for 75 per cent relief for the sector, and I hope that ministers will take that on board and look at what additional support can be provided to the key sectors of our economy. Scottish retailers have called on ministers to permanently lower business rates in Scotland. Firms for retail, hospitality and leisure sectors were fully exempt from non-domestic rates during the pandemic until 31 March. I agree with the point that Fergus Ewing made. We need to see how we can support businesses and make this change to make it as straightforward as possible for businesses to understand the new business rates environment that might be emerging in future financial years. Today's debate is also a welcome opportunity to look to the future and how the recovery from the pandemic and we can drive economic growth as well as being a key priority for not only the Scottish Government but our local authorities as well. With the council elections now less than a week away, it is clear that local councils face significant financial pressures and that will only increase in the coming years. Our town centres and high streets took a major hit during the pandemic. Local businesses that thrived before Covid have closed or are struggling to pay their bills. Many shops, restaurants, pubs and hotels have still not recovered to their pre-pandemic levels of business. During the pandemic, local councils played a major role in supporting businesses by distributing essential grant funding to them. As we continue to recover from the pandemic, local councils remain a key player in driving local growth. They must continue to have the flexibility to support businesses that fall between the cracks of national schemes and also support local partnerships in supporting the rebuilding of local economies across the country. It is still not clear how consumer habits though during the pandemic have shifted because of Covid and how we have seen a move in many retail outlets towards online shopping and online deliveries of both goods and food. It is clear that we need to see more to how we support businesses to rebuild that customer base and encourage footfall again in our town centres. We need to see both the UK and Scottish Government, and our councils respond to the short-term and long-term changes in consumer habits and look towards how they can support any challenges that that presents. I also think to see how those businesses who now want to have that online presence can have additional support to manage that and set up the necessarily IT projects and teams to support their businesses. Scottish Conservatives want to see the Scottish Government keep business rates, relief in place for this coming financial year and look towards introducing longer-term discount schemes for businesses, especially as I have already highlighted in traditional town centres and our high streets, which have faced such huge pressures. Business gateway services are essential for business start-ups and scale-up, and that is why Scottish Conservatives have called for and support the further development of business gateway services. To conclude, Scottish Conservatives will support the bill to update Scotland's non-domestic rates legislation and support the committee's recommendations as well. The legislation is indeed similar to what has been undertaken in England and Wales and is the most straightforward way to sustain an already overwhelmed appeal system. I hope that today's debate can give an opportunity to put on record a number of the concerns that, with regard to further support for assessors that we need to see and the number of points that have arisen and been put to us as a committee during the passage of the bill as well. I hope that those concerns will be addressed by the Scottish Government and that we make sure that businesses across Scotland are now given all the support that they need to come back from what has been an awful time during the pandemic. Grateful to be opening the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour today. If passing the non-domestic rates coronavirus Scotland bill being debated today would ensure that from the 2 April 2020 to the 1 April 2021 the impact of Covid-19 cannot be used while determining the rateable value of non-domestic property unless it has resulted in a change to the physical state of the property and Labour supports that bill. As the minister says, this bill does the same thing for the period April 20 to April 21 as evaluation and rating coronavirus Scotland order 2021 does for the period of 1 April 2021 onwards. Labour supported this order at committee and as such Labour supports the general principles that we're debating today. It does seem the most sensible way to proceed given the levelly appeals that have come forward. With that said it's always important to look at the concerns raised by stakeholders on the bill and on the previous order. There were a number of concerns over lack of consultation on the original order and it is essential that the government makes clear that this omission does not set a precedent for future legislation. It was also noted that there were fears that this policy decision sets a precedent in terms of retrospective changes to tax policy so again it's important that we do have clarity. The government has assured Parliament that the principles of certainty and engagement would underpin future non-domestic rates policy and Labour will hold the government to that commitment. More concerning than these should be the current state of our high streets. Pre-pandemic as other speakers have said you would only need to walk into your local town centre to see the problems clearly a lack of diversity of business, high vacancy rates and a lack of footfall leading to what many reported as the death of the high street. Now with almost 20,000 small businesses lost during the single year of the pandemic it is critical that we look at what we can do to support the rebirth of our high streets. At the heart of that must be support for businesses coming out of the pandemic. Part of this must be a review of the non-domestic rates and the approach in calculation more generally. As the subject has been raised by this debate on many occasions I revisited the last time I spoke on this subject in 2019. Concerningly problems I raised three years ago remain the case today. The process for revaluations remains too complex and difficult for the majority to understand and the government has still not addressed the workload pressures for assessors leading to a perfect storm by the time the pandemic started. I said it was ridiculous at that time and it remains ridiculous that a business would struggle to understand the process of revaluation, a process which should and must be totally transparent to all businesses. When businesses do not understand the process is it any wonder that 40,000 properties had an appeal lost in relation to the impact of the pandemic between January 20 and March 2021? Would we expect the same number of appeals if business owners felt they understood the process for revaluation and felt they were being treated fairly and being engaged in that process? Would that not indicate a need for more support for businesses as we come out of the pandemic? By clearing up confusion on the process of revaluation alongside further targeted support for businesses worst hit by the pandemic, we could reduce the workload pressures on assessors by simply removing the requirement to appeal in the first place. Scottish Labour is calling for retail, hospitality and leisure properties in Scotland to be in receipt of the same 50 per cent rate relief as is being offered in England this year so that they are given equal support on the road to recovery. This is one small step that the Scottish Government could take today to support the bounce back of the high street. Are they ready to do what is required? Businesses that they are keen to recover from this growth, SMEs make up the highest-level employment in Scotland, and therefore it is important that we do all of us in this Parliament what we can to support the growth of SMEs across Scotland. Thank you Mr Riley, and we will now move on to the open debate. I can advise members that we have quite a bit of time in hand so that I can be very generous. First, I will call Paul MacLennan to be followed by Douglas Lambson. As a member of the local government and housing and planning committee, I am delighted to be contributing to this debate. When the minister gave evidence to the committee, he explained that the aim of the bill is to ensure fairness for all Scottish ratepayers while maintaining the integrity of the non-domestic rates system. It was also to ensure the stability of Scottish public finances and stated that it provides ratepayers with clarity and consistency on the policy around the material change of circumstances appeals, MCCs. Typically, the term MCC has been used to reflect either physical changes to a property such as an extension or demolition or certain major changes in a specific area such as the tramworks in Edinburgh. The intention of the change and the definition of MCC that was introduced by the NDR rates Scotland Act 2000 was to reflect recent case law and to move to a three-year revaluation cycle where there are certain circumstances in which a general economic factor can be regarded as being relevant to a change in valuation. With more than 40,000 MCC appeals being lodged since the start of the pandemic, the Scottish Government's view was that economic changes to rateable values that have resulted from Covid-19 should be considered not under MCC provisions but at revaluation, at which point the impact across all properties would be taken into account. It is key to note that that view was shared by Administrations across the UK. The minister also made it clear that the bill would not remove the right of appeal and would be for appellants to decide whether they want to pursue or withdraw their Covid appeals. Given that such appellants might not feel they are in a sufficiently informed position to take such a decision until Parliament is finished at the screen of the bill, the minister also confirmed that the Scottish Government intended shortly to introduce legislation to extend the disposal deadline by a further year beyond 31 December 2022, which he has already referred to. The committee also welcomed the Scottish Government's intention to extend its disposal deadline from 31 December 2022 until 31 December 2023. Obviously, it looks forward to considering the relevant legislation in due course. There are three guiding principles in regard to the legislation. The bill provides clarity and consistency underlining the economic shock of the Covid-19 pandemic when the business community will best be addressed by Scotland's new three-year business rates revaluation. The approach that is taken in the bill ensures the fairest route forward for all rate payers. The bill will also protect the revenues of local authorities, avoiding unnecessary pressure on public services. At this point, I will mention my register of interests, I am still a seven cancer for one more week. It is also at this stage highlighting that since the start of the pandemic, the continued Scottish Government's support for business has reached more than £4.5 billion. As we all know, Covid-19 had the major impact on the economy, and the Scottish Government responded swiftly on an unprecedented basis to support businesses through the pandemic. It introduced 100 per cent retail, hospitality, leisure and aviation relief for 2021 and 2022, and continued relief for 50 per cent for the first quarter, 22.23 for retail, leisure and hospitality sectors. The minister also explained that, following the wracol review of non-domestic rates, the Scottish Government had strengthened revaluations to ensure that more closely reflect market circumstances by increasing the frequency of revaluations from five-yearly to three-yearly and reducing the time between tone date and revaluation. The next revaluation, as the minister has said, has been delayed by one year to 2023, and the Scottish Government had brought forward its commitment to a one-year tone date, which was 1 April 2022. Both measures had been universally welcomed by the business community in Scotland. It is important to note that rolling out of growing and revised considerations does not apply to the changes of the physical state of a property. In conclusion, the bill gives businesses and local authorities clarity and consistency for the next few years. Challenges remain, as we recover from the pandemic, in dealing with the cost-of-line crisis. Our high streets are at the heart of our communities, and I know that the minister is working very closely with business in this regard. Retail strategy being one example. It is the duty of us all to work closely with our business communities in the next few years. I now call Douglas Lumson to be followed by Collette Stevenson. For the last time, I would like to remind members of my register of interests that shows that I am still a councillor at Aberdeen City Council. Just on that, it has been a huge honour to serve as a councillor for my hometown, where I was lucky enough to be co-leader. I would like to pay tribute to all the staff at Aberdeen City Council, who, of course, were UK Council of the Year in 2020. Over the past five years, as a councillor, non-domestic rates have been one of the biggest issues facing the north-east. It is a topic that I have spent much time on, meeting local businesses and trying to understand the issues that they face and more on that later. As Conservatives, we welcome this bill today as a sensible measure to update Scotland's non-domestic rates and appeals, as both England and Wales have already done, but what we are supporting is a very small sticking plaster for a system that I feel is fundamentally broken. The bill that we support today will not help the thousands of businesses in the north-east that have been failed by the business rate system. In 2017, businesses in the north-east faged huge increases in the rates bill when the valuation date was assessed at the peak of the oil and gas activity, only for the new bills to arrive just when the sector was facing one of the biggest slumps and the area was impacted by that also. We now have the crazy situation where the non-domestic rates income from businesses in Aberdeen City is more than that of businesses in Edinburgh, which is staggering when you consider the size of Edinburgh and the population of Edinburgh is much larger than that of Aberdeen. Back in 2017, after a huge outcry, the then finance minister, Dennis Mackay, had to announce a £40 million rates relief package for the office sector and hospitality sector in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire to try to mitigate the extortionate rises in non-domestic rates, sometimes up to 400 per cent. While welcome, the rates relief package only helped certain sectors and still burdened them with increases of at least 14 per cent each year. Amazingly, businesses were told by the courts that a material change of circumstance had not taken place and hence businesses in the north-east were told by the Scottish Government that they would have to wait for the revaluation to take place to fix this discrepancy. Along with Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, I campaigned for the revaluation date to be brought forward, but those calls fell on deaf ears in government and then businesses were dealt another slap in the face when the revaluation date was actually delayed. The bill today means that businesses that made improvements to mitigate against Covid will not be penalised for those improvements, but the fact that we are having to bring this bill shows one of the biggest flaws in what we have in the non-domestic rates system. It was highlighted by David Lonsdale from the Scottish Retail Consortium at the Economy, Fair Work and Fair Work Committee just yesterday, and that is that businesses are penalised for investing and upgrading their premises. We are now in a position where a business may be struggling and they want to invest to try and protect their business, but they know that the stakes will be higher and the risks higher. Presiding Officer, it must be a near impossible position for so many businesses, and something needs to change. The rate system that we have at present is killing our high streets. Just today, we have seen a story in the press and journal on a business in Aberdeen's Union Street. The article tells how a local businesswoman, Julie Hulcup, opened a hair and beauty salon on Union Street, but after overcoming obstacles over obstacles over the past two years, her rates bill proved to be the final straw. Faced with a tax bill of over £1,900 per month, she is thrown in the towel and she fears more businesses could soon go the same way. Those are the type of local independent businesses that we need on our high streets, but the Scottish Government has failed them. The rate system that we have is killing our high streets. It is driving businesses away. It is stifling investment. There is a downward spiral that has been accelerated by Covid, and this devolved Government needs to take their head out of the sand and act and act quick. I am grateful to Mr Lumson for giving way. I ask his question in a spirit of genuine engagement. He raises and articulates his concerns and concerns of his constituents around the non-domestic rate system. We had the independent Barclay review several years ago, and the UK Government recently published a fundamental review of the business rate system in England for England. One of the things that that ultimately articulated was measures that we would start to implement in Scotland, such as a move to a three-year evaluation, a relief similar to our business growth accelerator, but that review itself fundamentally recognised that a tax on commercial property was a fundamental part of a balanced business tax system. The member has articulated a range of concerns. I am genuinely interested to hear what his views are around reform. As a particular measure that he would like to see implemented, does he believe that we should still continue to be a property-based tax, or does he believe that there is to be an alternative means of taxation? What are his views? Does he believe that the system should continue to exist as it is, but it should be about a different set of reliefs? I am taking advantage of this time in hand, Presiding Officer, but I am very keen to hear what the member's views are and how the system should be reformed. Before I comment on Lumson, I would say that it had been generous because it had indicated that we have a bit of time, and that was the only reason why. Douglas Robertson? Yes, absolutely, Presiding Officer. It is good that you have mentioned the Barclay review, because that is one of the areas that I have been speaking to businesses quite a lot about over the past five years. Those businesses felt that the Barclay review, the remit, was just too tight. It was only about tinkering around the edges. So what would have been better would have been if there was a review that was more wide-ranging than what Barclay was allowed to do, and that could have engaged with businesses and brought out better ideas on how we could have a system that is fit for purpose and would help to improve our high streets. Just now, but the Government can't just cross its fingers and hope for the best. That will not work. There needs to be urgent action taken now before more and more retail businesses go to the wall. The Covid business rate support packages were, of course, welcome, but they were delaying and masking the issues that we now face. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, we welcome the bill as a first step, fairly first small step, but more needs to be done. The Scottish Government has the powers. It now needs to stop sitting on its hands and use them. Thank you, Mr Lumson, and I call Collette Stevenson to be followed by Fergus Ewing. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I remind members of my register of interests. I am also a serving councillor in South Lanarkshire for the next week. The non-domestic rates coronavirus Scotland bill will ensure fairness for all Scottish rate peers while maintaining the integrity of the non-domestic rate system and the stability of Scottish public finances. In considering this bill, there are some key points that we must note about the non-domestic rates landscape. Firstly, the purpose of this bill is something that has been supported by the Scottish Assessors Association and will be implemented in England by the Conservatives of Government and Wales by Labour. Secondly, and importantly, we must consider this bill alongside the Scottish Government's wider support for businesses and other organisations liable for non-domestic rates. Under the SNP, Scotland has the lowest business rates pounded in the UK. Furthermore, the SNP Government's continuation of the small business bonus scheme over this Parliament will ensure that 100,000 business properties in Scotland pay no rates. On top of that, when Covid struck, the Scottish Government effectively froze pounded rates and implemented 100 per cent rates relief for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. For the first quarter of the new financial year, the Scottish Government has introduced a 50 per cent relief for those sectors. I am sure that this will be a welcome buffer as we look forward, hopefully, to better months and years ahead. As well as reliefs, the revaluation of premises in a timely manner is important for the sake of businesses and local authorities. The Scottish Government has already implemented shorter revaluation cycles. Importantly, the current economic climate, in terms of its impact on the rateable values across all proper days, will be taken into account during the upcoming revaluation period. Ratepayers will continue to have the right to appeal decisions by valuation boards and to request reviews following changes to premises. Over the pandemic, co-ordinated Scottish Government support for businesses has totalled £4.5 billion. For local authorities, non-domestic rates alongside council tax are important revenue raising tools, but it is also important that there are opportunities to tailor business rates, depending on local circumstances. That includes discretionary relief powers for the third sector and sports organisations. Furthermore, the Community Empowerment Scotland act gave councils a new power to create and fund their own localised business rates relief schemes, in addition to existing national rates. I welcome the ability for councils to have rate reduction zones, but when councils have so little money, it is difficult to do anything with that. Would the member agree with me that it would be more beneficial to allow councils to have more flexibility when it comes to business rates, so that they can raise more money so that they can make their reduction schemes more effective? In terms of local government and the discretionary powers that they have at the moment, I do not think that they have been fully utilised. I would like to see more of that, and I would like to see more talks with COSLA on that as well. That allows councils to better reflect local needs and support communities. Another tool that can be very useful is the business rates incentivisation scheme, which encourages councils to grow their local business tax base and maximise income. The scheme was suspended during the pandemic, but its reintroduction could perhaps help to support economic recovery as we move forward. In conclusion, this bill is necessary to support public finances. As I have mentioned, this bill is just one part of the wider non-domestic rates landscape in Scotland. Under the SNP, Scotland benefits from both the lowest business rates poundage in the UK and the most generous relief schemes. Given the consensus from Governments across the UK that this policy is necessary, I hope that we will see the general principles of the bill agreeing today and I support the motion. The topic of business rates is arcane, esoteric and drier than the Saharan sands. It attracts certain anoraks, not excluding myself, to contribute in the debate as I am doing today. Nonetheless, it is hugely important to businesses and to the Government. This struck me many years ago when, in 2008, we introduced the small business bonus. I was visiting a lady atelier in Can You See and she said to me, what will it mean for me? I said, get your rates bill and I will calculate what you will save. She brought the bill to me and I looked at it and I did some calculations. I hope that I got them right. I said, you are going to save several thousand pounds. She looked at me and she said this and it is the only time that has ever happened in a rather long political career. She said, Mr Ewing, I love you. I enjoyed that moment. To be serious, I wanted to make a few brief reflections and one plea to the minister. The reflections are as follows. Are the predictions about forecasted future total non-domestic rates revenue somewhat optimistic? They went down to £2 billion last year, £2.8 billion this year and going up to £3.2 billion, £3.1 billion and £3.2 billion. I wonder when retail is suffering, when online is growing, when offices are not being used so much, whether we can predict such optimistic forecasts. If we get the figures wrong, ordinary individuals will have to pay through their taxation. I wonder if, in the three-year cycle of revaluation, whether the recessors will be able to perform the work on time within that time limit. It might be sensible to discourage frivolous applications or appeals. When I was in business, I made several of those because I thought that I would just chance my arm and see if I could get some money off as all businesses do. Cost recovery is the normal principle. A small fee of £50 or something would discourage completely frivolous applications, which would just clutter up the system. I did want to make a plea. This is the main point that I wanted to make. I have, true to my anoraki's, tendencies waded through the bill, the explanatory memorandum, as well as studying the evidence session where Mark Crothaw, where Paul Tognieri, Leon Thomson and others gave evidence. It is well worth considering seriously the import of what they say with regard to the next revaluation. Every revaluation brings major change. The last one hit hard the small hydro sector. Absolutely, stratospheric increases. We have now had to bring in a relief to 2032 to counteract that. The system is not really supposed to work like that. The key issue is this. Covid has had short-term impacts and we have discussed that today, but it will also have longer-term serious impacts. For example, I know from many hours of discussion with those in tourism, including Mark, Leon and many people, especially in inward-bound tourism, people coming to Scotland from other countries, that sector, two operators, airports, visitor attractions such as the whisky centre, which is a brilliant attraction but entirely dependent on foreign visitors for a very large proportion of its customers, they are thinner on the ground. Is it not the case that there has been a long-term change in the pattern of people so that fewer people may actually have foreign holidays both here and in other countries coming inbound? I think that that is probably the case. Paul Tognieri argued with Forrest when he gave his evidence committee that the way of calculating rates for licensed premises is particularly harsh. The point was also made that the total cumulow increase in debt in LC bills and bounce-back loans was £4 billion across the whole business world. Now, if the debt of Scottish business as a whole has increased by that amount because of Covid, of course that will have long-term consequences because money borrowed has to be paid back. Therefore, my plea to the ministers, the assessors, and conclude with this, is that I obviously do not want to get into further with your good self. By plea is this, the assessors are entirely independent and rightly so, but that does not mean that they cannot go and engage with business and listen to business. Will he encourage them to do so, particularly with regard to those sectors that feel that they have a strong case to say that Covid sadly has not just delivered short-term pain but has caused them very serious structural systemic difficulties, which surely must be taken into consideration at the next revaluation. I now call Martin Whitfield to be followed by Willie Coffey. It is a pleasure to follow Fergus Ewing. I hope not quite the same pleasure that his constituent had, but it was a powerful speech and it did raise some of the important issues that address us, not just today but actually going forward, about how has our business structure changed as a result of Covid and many across this house will have heard exactly the same cries from various areas of business about the challenges that they face going forward. It is a pleasure, of course, to contribute in this stage one debate and I echo throughout these comments that the Labour Party will be supporting this at this stage, but I do feel it is a missed opportunity. In the time that I've got available, Scottish Labour do believe that this Government could do so much more to support our towns and high streets through Scotland's local tax system. We've lost almost 20,000 small businesses during a single year of Covid and many more are likely to follow if the SNP failed to adequately support small business in the recovery. The Bill deals with the very specific problems and challenges that are faced by our businesses on the village high streets, our town high streets and indeed in the cities. The economic climate and this government have overseen a reduction between March 2020 and March 2021 of businesses in Scotland by 19,805, a drop of 5.4%, the lowest number of enterprises in Scotland since 2014. Our business enterprises have been stretched to breaking point by this crisis and renewed help is urgently required from the Scottish Government. But I also want to take the opportunity, as I'm sure the Minister is aware, to hint at some of the procedural failings in this Bill, not merely to highlight those failings but actually as a plea to how when we go forward to restructure non-domestic rates we do include those people who understand those industries that have reflected the changes and those experts with lived experience who can help guide and create a system that will work. In the report to the order, the committee, and I'm very grateful for the conveners allowing the intervention that she gave me with regard to the committee's reports, both of which I do reiterate are excellent, but there were concerns about the stakeholder engagement and the lack of consultation, and with the Bill concerns were again raised by stakeholders over this, and especially the business regulatory impact assessment. I know that this has been published now a few days ago, but it was published late, and it does sit at the core. These are the documents that should really feed into the decision-making that the committee have, but also members across this chamber about whether or not we want to support a stage 1. When he was before the committee, the minister said that he was confident that there'd been sufficient opportunity for engagement and consultation and the extensive process that the minister outlined. The process has allowed issues to be aired and considered and businesses have had the opportunity to feed into it. Throughout the extensive engagement with the business community, in his experience the issue was not raised to any meaningful extent, and I welcome the letter from the government dated 26 April, which talks about, well, in a paragraph headed consultation engagement, but actually just simply talks about the failure to publish the business and regulatory impact assessment. No real explanation about the lack of engagement about the specific points that are raised in this bill was made, and that concerns me about going forward, because industry and stakeholders have expressed concern about the level of input that they had. That will be crucial going forward in how we redesign this system. They are the experts, and we should listen to them. I am very conscious of time, but I just wanted to raise one more point, which is in relation to the fact that the committee now accepts the level of consultation, and to write that I should draw attention to that in my speech, because I was going to criticise it. But I would ask the minister in summing up whether or not there can be an assurance about that consultation, and also again an assurance that I know has been given in writing, but I think we'd be grateful to go on the record about the question of retrospective alteration in tax procedures. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you. Mr Whitfield, I now call Willie Coffey, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Mr Coffey. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I say at the beginning that I really enjoy my friend and colleague Fergus Ewing's speeches in this chamber. He certainly can brighten up a dull day. He should be selling a course of 10 speeches, Fergus, and many members would learn a lot if they came here to listen to you. And in saying that to you, I recall other colleagues, Dave McLeachie. I always came to the chamber to listen to Dave McLeachie's speeches, because he was excellent, and also Tom McCabe, her labour who used to serve the back there, and his speeches were wonderful. Presiding Officer, it's a fairly short debate, as we know, where the speeches are actually probably longer than the bill itself, again. But it's an important debate worth emphasising that the purpose of the bill is to ensure fairness that some members have described today, to all domestic great peers in Scotland, and maintain some kind of stability within the public finances. The bill makes sure that the effects of Covid can't be used as a material change of circumstances, to lodging appeal, and as other members have said, this is happening in Wales, Northern Ireland and England. That MCC route can still be deployed, of course, but only where physical changes to a property or major changes occur in some area. At the outset of our committee's consideration of the bill, we heard about the potential for the huge number of Covid-related appeals, which, if permitted, would put serious pressures on the assessor's ability to get through that workload. If that was successful, it could significantly reduce public finances for our local services. The minister addressed this and has said in his response letter to the committee's report that he has extended the disposal deadline for all the permitted appeals, and that's to be welcomed, I think. We also heard the design officer from the Federation of Small Businesses that there aren't many smaller businesses among the appellants whilst larger multinational superhabs enhance their profitability during Covid. It could have been in for a bit of an unwarranted windfall if they had been successful in their appeals. The committee agreed that the proposal by the Scottish Government in line with those other jurisdictions that we've mentioned was the right and probably the only approach to take. Some of the issues that cropped up during the committee's deliberations focused on consultation and engagement, and it's been mentioned by a couple of members too today. We stakeholder way. Some responded saying that it wasn't sufficient, but the minister was pressed on this at the committee and he explained and he also explained in his opening remarks that he had intimated his intentions as early as June 2021 and that extensive consultation had in fact taken place. In balance, I think it's fair to say that the committee accepted that explanation from the minister. The other main consideration, as I recall, was whether the briar, and that's been mentioned again by a couple of members, a business regulatory impact assessment should have accompanied the bill, and the committee noted that that was a departure from the norm. In his response again to the committee's report, the minister reminded us that it was published on the Government website, but the Government might have made it a bit clearer and could have drawn the committee's attention to it, and that's a welcome remark too. As the convener made clear in her speech, it's an unusual step to take to retrospectively change tax policy by removing rights of appeal in certain circumstances, but in balance, the committee agreed that there wasn't really any other option open to the Scottish Government to enable it to deal with the issues thrown up by the pandemic. As we know, non-domestic rates relief has been a feature of the Scottish Government's approach to taxation and has taken over 100,000 small businesses out of the system altogether, which has been described as a lifeline by the Federation. Retail hospitality and leisure businesses have been given that 50 per cent relief for the further three months into 2023, and that follows on from the full 100 per cent relief that they got over the past two years. Now, an interesting but important aside, noted in Hidden Away in paragraph 65 of our report, recalled the announcement made by the UK Government the day after this Parliament went into recess for the Scottish Parliament election in March 2021, was that £1.5 billion was to be made available for business support, and that Scotland's consequential share of that would be £145 million. As the minister will recall, I continually sought confirmation whether Scotland had received that support. In the most recent committee meeting, the minister made clear that, in his opinion, that cash had now been received—very much welcome, even if, over a year late, incoming. Our committee has recognised that the Scottish Government has had to act rapidly to get help out to businesses and to mitigate the potential significant and serious impact of tens of thousands of appeals. With that, Presiding Officer, I am content to recommend that the Parliament also supports the general principles of this bill. Thank you, Mr Coffey. We will now move to closing speeches. I call on Alex Riley to wind up on behalf of Scottish Labour. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There is broad agreement across the chamber that it is necessary to take the steps that are being taken today. However, there is also broad agreement around a few issues. When the minister was speaking to Fergus Ewing and asked him about encouraging assessors to engage with businesses—I am not sure that he answered that, but my experience before Covid was that many businesses found it difficult to understand how assessors had reached the conclusions that they had reached. When they tried to engage with them, they were quick to point out, as you were, that they are independent. However, independent does not mean that they should not be engaged with businesses, they should not be having discussions with businesses, and businesses should be able to understand why they have been asked to pay the sums that they have been asked to pay. That is a clear message in terms of looking forward. I think the minister did ask somebody about what steps would you take to address the replacement or to make the system fairer. I would say to you that the first step would be to say that it has to be transparent and that businesses have to understand why they have been asked to pay what they are being asked to pay. I would also say that that raises a wider issue around business support. Local authorities over many years have been cutting back local economic development services and local business services. I think that somebody mentioned Douglas London and the sticking plaster over a broken system, but part of that has to be to look at what support businesses need. We all accept that businesses and I think that Miles Briggs made the point about the impact to the pandemic on businesses. It has been a dreadful time. We do not, at this stage, we certainly could not say at this stage that confidence that pre-pandemic business will resume again, because a lot of people, their lifestyles, the way that the shop, etc., has changed. We really do not know what the final outcome is going to be in the impact of the pandemic on particular lower high streets, but I would say that I think that local authorities are ill-acquact to be able to put in place the levels of support that need to be put in place. There is a wider strategic review, I think, about working web-usiness to say particularly high streets. The former finance secretary, Derek Mackay, made a big thing a few years ago, where he announced £50 million, the investment, the last minute in his budget. It got lots of positive press for £50 million going into high streets. My response at that time was how much more street furniture and cobbles can we actually make to make places look better. My classic example of that, I do not know if David Torrance is in today, but my classic example of that would be Cercodi high street. You go into Cercodi high street and you look at the street furniture, the pavements, etc. There has been massive investment. Five council have invested, invested, invested, but the fact is that the shops are still empty. You then go up the road—I am referring to a previous planning policy—to the business park up at the John Smith business park. You find an expanding business park where masses of free parking, massive investment and the food falls massive at Christmas time, etc. You cannot get near that. There is a comparison. That was because decisions were made on a planning level, on a policy level that has resulted in the high street being killed. If we are going to have this discussion—I know that I have talked to the minister about this—I know that he is keen to look at how we actually move forward. Let us have that wider discussion rather than simply throwing money at high streets. Let us have that wider discussion with businesses, with local authorities, with the partners. How do we revive town centres? Otherwise, I fear we throw more money after more money and we end up with the same result moving forward. The business gateway services, economic development services, all of that has to be strengthened at a local level. We should have local and regional economic development strategies across Scotland that link skills, link opportunities and work with businesses. We really need to have a fresh approach if we are going to create the businesses of the future, if we are going to invest in those businesses, and if we do not, we will not grow your economy. It is as simple as that. The priorities for that must move forward. Fergus Ewing mentioned the structural difficulties that are in place at the present time. With that, I have reached my five minutes, and I am sure that there will be consensus, and we will support the bill today. Mr Ewing is in fine form in the chamber these days, and that must be because he is free of ministerial shackles, but he entertains us on a regular basis. However, he made a very important point that this debate was for anorax, but nonetheless it is a very important one. He is absolutely spot on here because one could easily argue about the complexities and difficulties of all this debate, but it really matters, especially if we are going to help businesses to get back on their feet and to recover from what many inside the business community say has been the most difficult period in their history. Of course, it is wholly understandable that Covid-19 has created numerous concerns for businesses, not least because of the effect of the virus itself and the accompanying restrictions on the way that businesses have had to reorganise themselves. However, 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 changes in circumstance. Appeals lodged, for example, on the grounds of social distancing, measures of increased home and hybrid working or, in many cases, the requirement to close down businesses altogether. Sometimes that has been temporary, but sometimes it has not. All of those have had huge implications for properties valuation, and we have to be cognisant of the fact that that is very serious for a whole range of businesses. As Miles Biggs rightly set out when he was speaking on behalf of the Conservatives at the start, he made the point that the number of appeals relating to that particular issue is just under the £50,000, and that is a huge increase, obviously, by comparison. I think that it was 2018-2019, if my memory is correct, when it was something around the £5,700 mark. That is a huge difference. Because of the fact that the Covid pandemic has been the reason for that, the Scottish Government, quite rightly in my opinion, considers it likely 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. As there are just under 50,000 properties that are the subject of appeals, I have combined with a rateable value of £3,929 million that those properties correspond to an estimated total of £1,117 million in net rates income in 2021. We are obviously not talking about low levels of money, and that is why that legislation is so very important. As others have mentioned this afternoon, if the bill passes, it would mean that no account can be taken of any matters relating to coronavirus when determining the net annual valuable or 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 grounds that the valuation of a property has been affected by the coronavirus pandemic with effect from 2 April 2020. The Scottish Government, just like the UK Government, is absolutely right when it is of the opinion that any impact on the rental values arising from Covid-19 or from the actual restrictions forms part of the general market conditions and therefore they should be considered as part of the wider revaluation. I thought that both Martin Whitfield and Fergus Ewing raised very important points about the engagement process that absolutely has to take place. That is essential. It is quite right that, if appeals on the grounds of Covid-19 were permitted in relation to material changes in circumstances and obviously rateable values, it would have to change constantly. Clearly, that is neither sensible nor practical. It seems to me that there is widespread agreement about the principles of the bill. Indeed, the fact that there were no significant issues raised in the submissions suggests that there was also widespread support for the bill across the business sector. However, what I think is interesting, however—this has come out in the debate this afternoon—is that the general discussions about the bill have given rise to other issues. My colleague Douglas Lumsden made some very interesting points about what has happened in the north-east. Alex Rowley, who raised very serious questions about what is happening in our high streets and about the planning that goes alongside that. We have had comments about the Barclay review and what was the intention of the Barclay review, but what might be the implications of that? Miles Briggs referred to the fact that perhaps we need to be looking at the appeals process to review it. Of course, it has reignited the debate about future reform of non-domestic rates, most especially that it is a very outdated and overly complex system, which is tied up with far too much red tape. That debate will, no doubt, continue as we approach revaluation and pandemic permitting. I do not think that it is in anyone's interest to delay that revaluation for too long, because the consideration of reform is as important as the revaluation. As Liz Cameron quite rightly said to the chambers of commerce, the current business rate system is just not fit for purpose. She makes 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 what it was before the pandemic. She is right to argue, in my opinion, for simplification of what is really a highly complicated system. I think that David Lonsdale made this point at the economy committee yesterday, and I am sure that there is a debate there for another day. However, the bill has reminded us of the deep-seated concerns of the business community, and we really cannot ignore them for too much longer. Unlikely, to accompany the discussions that are taking place in the finance committee about the impending fiscal framework re-negotiations, there is discussion about what constitutes fair taxation. Ariane Burgess mentioned the principles of fair tax when it comes to the Adam Smith principles, but we have to apply those principles in a more modern approach. That is something that both the finance committee and perhaps the economy committee have to be very keen to do, just as quickly as is possible. I sum up by saying that we welcome this afternoon's debate. We see it as essential for the business community and to repeat the fact that the Scottish Conservatives will be supporting it. Thank you, Ms Smith. I now call on Tom Arthur to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government. Minister, you have seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I begin by thanking members from across the chamber for their constructive, considered and thoughtful contributions this afternoon? I also strongly welcome the support of parties across the chamber for the general principles of the bill. As Liz Smith touched on, a bill such as this, particularly one of the broad consensus in the general proposition before Parliament, will invite consideration of a broader range of issues. I note those points regarding wider reform of non-domestic rates and the issues around our town centres and high streets. I intend to touch on those points in a moment, but I think that I will reflect on some of the key points pertaining to the bill initially. One issue that has been raised by a number of members is that of scrutiny and consultation. I take those points very seriously. I sought a committee and, indeed, in my written response to the committee to provide some of the reasoning and rationale behind that. I think that we would recognise that this legislation is born of an extraordinary and unprecedented period in all our lives with regard to the Covid pandemic. Indeed, it has necessitated actions that would have perhaps been considered unique and unusual across legislators on these islands. I note that the UK Government was in the position where, on the subordinate legislation regarding Covid-19 appeals, which preceded its own primary legislation, it was introduced and passed all in the space of today's. We have thought to give as much clarity as possible, hence informing and alerting Parliament of our intentions in June of last year, proceeding with the order where we could do with regard to subordinate legislation before the introduction of the bill, which we are considering. I note that the committee, from the comments of the convener, is now satisfied that there has been a degree of consultation. I recognise the points that Mr Briggs made, which was that the process of scrutiny undertook in regards to the order obviated the need for a more extensive piece of scrutiny when consideration of the bill came before the committee. I would just want to reiterate that I recognise that this is perhaps a more unique set of circumstances, which is ultimately in response to the unprecedented set of circumstances that we have faced with regard to the pandemic. I also want to just be clear that, as I made reference to in my opening remarks and, as I said to the committee, the legislation does not remove any existing rights of appeal and, indeed, we have extended the disposal deadline to ensure that the appellants are not negatively impacted and have that opportunity to consider once Parliament has completed its deliberations on the legislation. I want to be turned to just a few of the contributions. First, I commend my friend and colleague, Fergus Ewing, for doing what is an art and a skill that requires years of parliamentary experience, which is to bring humour to a debate on non-domestic rates. More importantly, I thank him for his very informed and considered contribution to debate. I take his points very seriously. I am sure that he fully understands, as a long-serving minister, that I have to respect the independence of assessors, but I note that members have made their views very clear in the chamber this afternoon. I also want to remind the chamber that the Scottish Government continues to gaze with assessors regularly on all the issues, particularly around workload. We would expect assessors to notify us if there were any particular resource implications arising from workload. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. Does he share the concerns that Fergus Ewing has around the intake of non-domestic rates in the three to four years going forward? I think that it is a point that was well articulated. This is perhaps moving on to a broader consistent of the prevailing economic circumstances that we are inheriting from Covid. Covid obviously had unique impacts and the health protection measures that were introduced will have had impacts that were unexpected, but looking broadly at the impact of town centres on retail, one thing that has been recognised is that it has accelerated existing trends. In the steering group that worked on the development of the retail strategy, it was noted in one contribution that potentially 10 years of change had been compressed into the space of 14 months. That is something that we have to respond to. I recognise the points that Alex Rowley makes. While I recognise the importance of the taxation system with regard to the viability of our town centres and high streets, I think that we would all recognise that it goes far beyond that. I would identify three areas of responsibility that I lead on within Government where action has been taken to address the issues that concern us all with regard to the viability and future of our town centres and indeed our city centres. First, we have published the retail strategy and I will be announcing due course the composition of the industry leader group for that strategy, which has been broadly welcome. Secondly, we have recently published the second town centre action plan, which responded to the independent review. That is a call to action that has been published in partnership with COSLA and will be delivered jointly. Thirdly, we have just completed the consultation phase of draft national planning framework 4, which we had an opportunity to consider in full last week. I would reiterate that my door is always open to discuss any aspects of NPF4, including policies around town centres, town centre first assessment, and I am keen to hear views on that. Across those areas, we are taking action. We are also taking action on funding for the town centres. We have a place-based investment programme of £325 million over five years. Mr Rowley made reference to town centre funds. The £25 million per year of the PBEB is the regeneration capital grant fund. We also have, for example, the vacant and derelict land programme, which is £50 million across the course of this Parliament. We also have the Scottish land fund, which we are doubling to £20 million per year and has, since 2016, been open to urban settings as well. I have seen, first hand, some of the impact that that has had. The minister is absolutely right on that. I am sure that the chamber would have lots of debates about what is the right tax and what levels taxation should be. Does he agree that the biggest complaint for a lot of the business community is about the complexity of it and that it is seeking considerable simplification of a lot of the tax measures? Does he see that as an important part of the consultation? I think that it does not matter what political flavour we might discuss. That is the key issue when it comes to a lot of businesses. Does he accept that? I recognise the point that Liz Smith is articulating. Through the bark of the reforms that we are in the process of implementing, that will go some way around appeals to lead towards simplification. I give an undertaking to reflect and engage regularly with the business on those matters. To bring my remarks to a close, I just want to reiterate my thanks to all members from across the chamber for their contributions this afternoon and to welcome the Parliament's support for the general principles of the bill. Thank you minister. That concludes the debate on non-domestic rates coronavirus Scotland Bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of motion 3794 in the name of Kate Forbes on a financial resolution for the non-domestic rates coronavirus Scotland Bill. I call on Tom Arthur to move the motion. The question on this motion will be put at decision time and in that regard I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now. I invite the minister for parliamentary business to move the motion. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion 4162 in the name of Tom Arthur on non-domestic rates coronavirus Scotland Bill at stage 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The final question is that motion 3794 in the name of Kate Forbes on a financial resolution for the non-domestic rates coronavirus Scotland Bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time and I close this meeting.