 Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting of the local government housing and planning committee in 2022. I would ask all members and witnesses to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent and that all other notifications are turned off during the meeting. Graham Day is joining us remotely for today's meeting. The first item on our agenda is to decide whether to take item eight in private. Item eight is consideration of the evidence that we have taken on the non-domestic rates coronavirus Scotland bill. Are we all agreed? Everyone is in agreement. Now we turn to agenda item two, which is to take evidence on the non-domestic rates coronavirus Scotland bill at stage one. We are joined remotely for this session by the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth, who is accompanied by Scottish Government officials Sandra Reid, who is a bill team leader, and David Smith, who is the lawyer. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting. As all of our witnesses are appearing remotely, I would be grateful if Mr Arthur could make it clear if he wishes for one of his officials to respond to a specific point. Before I open up the sessions to questions, would the minister like to make a short opening statement? I would be grateful for the opportunity, convener. Thank you very much. Good morning to the committee and thank you for the opportunity to participate remotely this morning. The aim of the bill is to ensure fairness for all ratepayers. Members may recall when I gave evidence on 16 November 2021 for the valuation and rating coronavirus Scotland order 2021, I commented that subordinate legislation could only apply to the period on or after 1 April 2021 and that, to go back further, would require primary legislation. The bill builds on that order and extends similar provisions to matters arising on or after 2 April 2020, by ruling that the effect of coronavirus on or after 2 April 2020 cannot be considered when calculating a property's rateable value or net annual value in the current valuation role. The significance of that date is that it aligns with the date from which the definition of material change of circumstances was clarified by the non-domestic rate Scotland Act 2020. The bill provides clarity and consistency to ratepayers on that policy. Typically, material change of circumstance 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 with that change in definition was to reflect recent case law and move to a three-year revaluation cycle by restricting the circumstances in which general economic factors can be regarded as being relevant to a change in valuation. Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, more than 40,000 non-domestic properties have been appealed on the basis that there has been an MCC. Given the timing, it is likely that those appeals were lodged as a result of the pandemic. The Scottish Government is of the view that economic changes to rateable values resulting from Covid-19 should be considered at revaluation and not under the MCC provisions. When the impact across all properties will be taken into account, that is a view shared by the UK, the Welsh Government and Northern Ireland. That ensures fairness to all rate players by ensuring that any effect of Covid-19 is considered for all properties at the next revaluation in 2023, rather than through the use of the MCC provisions. The bill under discussion today provides that in calculating the annual values or the rateable value in relation to any property in the 2017 valuation goal. No account can be taken of any matter arising on or after second year for 2020 that is directly or indirectly attributable to coronavirus. 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 goal, for instance if someone started working from home as a result of the pandemic. Although appeals have been submitted for over 40,000 properties for 2019-20, that is less than a 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. Ris may reflect our generous existing 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 material change of circumstances and provisions and probably therefore have appealed. Meanwhile, a number of large and multi-national firms that have been largely unaffected or potentially even successful during the pandemic have made appeals against their properties. As was discovered during evidence sessions for the order, there is a disconnect between how Covid has felt to businesses and how it has impacted rents in the commercial property market. This is a hugely complex issue and the outcome is uncertain. It cannot be assumed that those appeals would be successful or their outcome fair. We believe that the right time for market-wide economic changes to be reflected is at revaluation. We have strengthened revaluations following the independent public review of non-domestic rates to ensure that they more closely reflect market circumstances. Firstly, we increased the frequency of revaluations from five to three years and reduced the time between the tone date and revaluation. Secondly, with the support of your predecessor committee, we delayed the next revaluation by one year to 2023 and also brought forward that commitment to a one-year tone date, which will be 1 April 2022. Both measures have been universally welcomed by the business community in Scotland. Covid-19 has had a major impact on the economy and we responded swiftly and on an unprecedented scale to support businesses throughout the pandemic. We introduced 100 per cent retail, hospitality, leisure and aviation relief in 2020-21, and we are the first Government to confirm a full extension for this relief for 2021-22. In 2022-23, we responded to a key ask from the business community to prevent a cliff edge return to full liability on 31 March 2022. For businesses in the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, we are continuing relief at 50 per cent for the first three months of 2022-23, capped at £27,500 per rate pair. In the start of the pandemic, businesses have benefited from £4.5 billion of support, which includes £1.6 billion of Covid-related reliefs. We acted quickly to support the business community when it needed it most and continue to support businesses through the pandemic. Before closing, convener, I would like to highlight one parallel development. As stated, more than 40,000 appeals were launched following the outbreak of the pandemic. The committee, when considering the order, previously raised with me the issue of workload around those appeals. Appeals lodged between 1 January 2020 and 31 March 2021 currently have a disposal deadline of 31 December 2022. That is the date at which all appeals lodged between those dates required to be heard. Valuation appeal committee is required to provide appellants with a minimum 105-day notice period and any request for a referral to the Land's Tribunal for Scotland by one party to an appeal, which is often used for complex cases, would have to be done by the end of June. While the bill will provide clarity for rate pairs, I have been clear that it does not remove the right of appeal. It will be for appellants to decide whether they want to pursue or withdraw their Covid appeals. As I am sure the committee will appreciate, appellants may not feel that they are in a sufficiently informed position to take such a decision until Parliament has finished its scrutiny of the bill. For this reason, we intend to shortly lay legislation to extend the disposal deadline beyond 31 December 2022 by one further year. In closing, I would return to my opening comments that the bill seeks to ensure fairness for all Scottish rate pairs, while maintaining the integrity of the non-domestic rate system, as well as the stability of Scottish public finances. On that, convener, I will conclude and look forward to any questions that the committee may have. Thank you very much, minister. I thank you for highlighting the parallel development and your intention to lay legislation in that regard. I now open up the session for questions, and I would like to begin by asking what is the main driver for this bill? Is it the protection of public finances or managing the volume of appeals relating to coronavirus? As I attempted to convey when I was in front of the committee in November last year, we sought to clarify the definition of material change of circumstance in the non-domestic rate of Scotland Act 2020. That seeks to further clarify what we mean by material change of circumstance, and that is the primary driver for the bill that provides that clarity and certainty for the users of the non-domestic rate system. However, of course, public finances are a consideration, and the financial memorandum illustrates particular scenarios and the potential impact on public finances. Of course, where that materialised, that would have to be factored into however the manager and budget year in and year out. However, the key point that I want to come back to is that, fundamentally, there is uncertainty about the outcome of material change of circumstances, both in terms of duration of appeals and any potential outcome and any potential impact that it could have for ratepayers or, indeed, public finances. Effectively, the reasons that I gave for the introduction of the order back in November apply to this bill. I am conscious that it is stage 1 that we consider the general principle of legislation. I agree to the order that was before Parliament in November. There has been a recognition of that general principle of the need to clarify and be at and provide certainty on what material change of circumstances is for, which is for clearly delineated local specifics next to circumstances. In that broader considerations around the general economy, we are best captured through revaluation, which is why we have a revaluation. We need these changes to the revaluation process from a cycle of five years down to three years and a tone day that precedes revaluation by a single year. Ensuring that revaluation means that rateable values and annual values are more reflective of the market at the time that they are introduced. I hope that that helps to clarify what the intent behind the bill is. I thank you very much for that. That is a very helpful clarification. Does the Scottish Government hold the view that successful appeals would be unlikely to prove effective in targeting support to those businesses that are affected by coronavirus? I think that, given the unpredictable national order, there is no guarantee that any outcomes would be fair. I think that that is a point that we can all agree on. I think that the approach to supporting businesses that the Scottish Government has taken over the past two years of the pandemic has been one that has sought to focus on delivering support to where it is needed most. As I stated, we are provided in the region of £4.5 billion of support to businesses in Scotland. That is over £400 million more than what we received in consequentials from the UK Government. Indeed, as recently as December, we had announced the £375 million package to support in the wake of the Omicron variant emerging. Indeed, that has been delivered in Tronshies, the last of which was the £80 million of discretion to support. It is now going to be available for local government to administer within the area in particular. That allows for a much more bespoke, entailered and needs-based approach to business support. With MCC appeals, it is not only a question of unpredictability but the timescales as well. We have been focused on getting support to businesses as quickly as possible. I thank you very much for that response. I am now going to bring in Graham Day with questions, and he is joining us online. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. When this committee considered the secondary legislation related to this, a number of stakeholders raised concerns about what it considered to be a lack of consultation prior to the introduction of that secondary legislation. That was reflected in the committee's report. In fact, the committee sought to encourage the Government to take the opportunity afforded by the bill to undertake further consultation with stakeholders around the proposed legislation. However, we are told by some stakeholders that there still was no specific consultation undertaking relation to the bill, and some stakeholders have raised the issue of the lack of a Bria committee in that. I wonder how you would respond to those criticisms. As you will be aware, we indicated our intention to act in this in late June. That preceded the order that went before Parliament in the autumn. In that intervening period, there was extensive consultation, which my colleagues the cabinet secretary, Kate Forbes, my ministerial colleague, Mr McKee and myself undertook, where we met and engaged thoroughly with all of the major business representatives of organisations across Scotland. I think that I may not be certainly correctly conveyed at the committee that this was not an issue that was raised as a priority. Indeed, following that, there was the consideration of the order in which Parliament took extensive evidence, oral and written evidence, which I was able to respond to in questions to the committee in November. Through that particular process, as well as the fact that we announced in the programme for government that we would bring forward primary legislation in year 1 and a reiterated commitment at committee in November, we have been very clear on what it is that we are doing. We have continued some regular engagement with business, but in the intervening period between announcing our intention to act on the NCC and the order being considered by Parliament, we had extensive engagement with the business committee. That was not an issue that was certainly, in my experience, raised to any meaningful extent. Can I ask the minister if you feel that the matters that were covered by the bill were covered in that extensive dialogue that Kate Forbes and I and McKee were having with businesses? Yes, I do. There was not an opportunity for them to be covered within that dialogue, and the other point that I would say is that, given effectively what the bill is doing, it is effectively what the order that was considered, given that, seriously, taking the day back for the year 2020, there has been that opportunity for consultation and engagement, both in terms of direct engagement between ministers and business and representative organisations, but also, importantly, between the Parliament and considering that order. I am confident that there has been sufficient opportunity for that engagement and consultation to take place through that extensive process that I have outlined, both between Government and business and, indeed, between Parliament and business. That has provided opportunities for issues to be aired and to be considered, and I am confident that there has, as I said, been that opportunity for business to feed into the process. What about the absence of a brea? This is ultimately about clarifying an existing provision that is in place, which was within the non-domestic race act 2020. Effectively, what we sought to do with the order was to clarify what that provision actually meant in practice and what we are doing with this legislation is effectively. What we could not do through subordinate legislation alone is to bring the day back. The important point to note is that the date that this legislation refers to is the date when that power came into force in the 2020 act. Effectively, what we are seeking to do here is to clarify and, of course, the non-domestic race act would use an opportunity at that particular point to consider all of the policy intentions there. Effectively, what the order did and what the bill is doing is just seeking to provide greater clarity and uncertainty, which I would assume is something that would be welcomed. I am now going to bring in Paul MacLennan with questions. One of the key things that has been raised by stakeholders is the retrospective aspect of the legislation. I know that it has been mentioned by the Scottish Chamber of Commerce, the CBRE, around that. Do you recognise the concerns of the stakeholders in regard to the retrospective aspect of the legislation? It is important, and it is an appointment that I think has a preference to the line of questioning that Mr Davies is saying just a moment ago. Is that this legislation does not remove any existing appeal rights? Appeal rights are impacted. What it is seeking to do is to provide certainty and clarity around the definition of material change in circumstances. That policy intent was clear when Parliament passed the NDR Act 2020. As I said, the order made that we passed in the autumn and what the bill is doing is providing clarity. With regards to being retrospective, it is not removing any appeal rights. What it is doing is providing clarity around the definition of what a material change of circumstance is. Of course, it is for individual appellants to consider whether or not they wish to appeal or to remove appeal or to withdraw their appeal. That does not change. That is just around providing clarity around the definition of the NCC. Just on that as well, I suppose, I mean, would retrospective changes be considered again if the circumstances justified that and would still be the same approach? I know that it is kind of hard to forecast a future sort of thing, but if that did happen again, would there be a different approach, just like a different approach, or would this be considered again going forward? As I said, any provisions that are retrospective have to be given very careful consideration. What informs our approach to tax is our tax framework, which we published alongside the budget. I think that that gives the best overview of how we would seek to proceed, and part of that is to have continuous engagement in dialogue, as well as being underpinned by the Adamson principles. That informs our approach to taxation. As for any unknown unknowns and future hypotheticals, I would not want to speculate other than to say that decisions around taxation policy are informed by and will be consistent with what we have set out in the tax framework. I am now going to bring in Megan Gallacher with questions. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister and panel. I also refer members to my register of interests, as I am a servant councillor in North Lanarkshire, continuing with the theme of principles of taxation. While the Scottish Government's proposed approach goes against the principles of certainty and stakeholder engagement, the reason I am asking that is because the committee has previously raised concerns regarding that. I would like to seek assurances from the Government this morning that those principles will underpin future settings of non-domestic rates policy, so can I ask the minister if he could provide the assurances? I am very happy to, Ms Gallacher. I say that around the regard to consultation stakeholder engagement, I have sought to address that in response to Mr Day, with regard to certainty. That is at the very heart of what the bill is seeking to do. With regard to how we go forward, as I may reference to my opening remarks, one of the key asks of businesses, the key ask around non-domestic rates ahead of the budget, was to avoid that cliff edge on the 31st of March. That is exactly what we did with the RHL 50 per cent relief for the first three months. Between the certainty that the bill provides, the engagement that took place between announcing of intention and the order, and the current non-domestic rates policy for the forthcoming financial year, which has been informed by the key ask of business, demonstrates that, on engagement and on providing certainty, the Government is committed to being consistent with the principles that are outlined in the tax framework. You raised in your opening statement that you are aware of concerns that have been repeatedly raised around pressure on the assessor workforce. We have heard in evidence of difficulties from the Scottish Assessors Association on recruiting staff to deal with the revaluation. I just wanted to ask Minister if you think that assessor offices are adequately resourced to deal with that revaluation. I think that on that question of resource that helps to inform the decision that I made reference to in my remarks with regard to the legislation that we will be laying shortly, pretending to the disposal date, because it will help to provide the opportunity for appellants to consider the progress of the bill through the Parliament and whether that or not that informs their future decisions, but also helps to address the issue of pressures that are being faced by assessors. We are taking the approach, as I said, with the subordinate legislation that we will be bringing forward, which to allow more time for appellants and users of the system to consider the position in light of how Parliament progresses the bill, but that is a knock-on effect that will help to support assessors in freeing up resource, because I want to recognise that we are coming up with our tone date in a few weeks' time, two weeks' time and a revaluation process under way. I take the point that you make regarding resource and capacity for assessors, that is why I took the opportunity to inform the committee of the legislation that will be bringing forward, which will support assessors in terms of capacity management. I appreciate the minister letting the committee know about that extension to the deadline date by year. Does he think that that will mean that appeals will essentially be smoothed out over that longer period and give assessors more time to deal with those appeals, or if he thinks that it will simply move the backlog date a year later and that assessors' office will still be feeling that workload pressure a year further down the line? It is a fair question that you asked, Mr Griffin. What we have to say is that we have to recognise the independence of assessors and VAX in that regard. Ultimately, how they choose to manage their workload and how they choose to proceed is a massive amount of independent assessors, but we have sought to help us in moving and extending that deadline by year. There is no longer that statutory requirement for disposal by the end of this year, because, as I made references to my opening march, a deadline of 31 December, given the 105 days' notice for citation having been needed to refer to last year by the end of June, the deadline may be the first of December, but it is only three months away, or three and a half months away from the end of June, in that regard. It creates more immediate and approximate pressure. We have, by extending the deadline, taken to give that increased capacity and space, so to speak, for assessors, but with regard to how they manage their workload and how the valuation of fuel committees operate. That is a matter for them. As independent bodies, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to say anything. As a minister, it could be misconstrued as calling share how they carry out their functions independently. I just wanted to ask briefly whether you have any concerns over workload pressure to any appeals that would predate the second of April 2020. I recognise that that is a point that has been conveyed by the committee. I recognise that the key point of the second of April is to be consistent with what was in the 2020 act. The point that I have sought to make in response to all the questions that I have answered this morning is that the legislation is about providing clarity and certainty. That is why it is very important that it aligns with the second of April 2020 that was in the bill. I recognise that there may be concerns. I think that the reasoning and rationale behind the second of April is very important, and that is why that day is in the bill. It is before us today. Thank you. I am now going to bring in Miles Briggs. Thank you, convener. Good morning minister. Good morning to your panel as well. Thank you for joining us. I wanted to ask a question with regards to targeted business support. I just wondered how effectively support for businesses has been targeted in response to the pandemic. What information does the Scottish Government specifically have on businesses that have fallen outside that criteria of support? Thank you, Mr Briggs. It is a good question. I think that I suppose that the heart of it and answering that has to be a recognition that it has not been possible to help every single business. Of course, we are, to an extent, restricted by the mechanisms at our disposal for getting money out of the door. One of the ways that we are solicited to address that is through the discretionary funding that we have provided to local government. I made reference to the latest transfer of £80 million, which local government will have in discussion. I think that that ultimately affects our recognition that it is that local knowledge that councils have and can bring to bear in supporting businesses. We have also sought, through other mechanisms as well, such as Scotland, lots of local funding to provide support for businesses more generally and at localities. I think that the key point that we have come back to is that we have had a total of £4.5 billion, £1.6 billion of reliefs were responded to the big and key aspect of the business, which was to provide the cliff edge in 31 March. Obviously, it covers a range of reliefs that are specifically delivered through the NDAS system in the past two financial years, which have been extensive. Obviously, we are addressing the ask in the coming financial year to avoid the cliff edge. There are various business support grants that have been in operation across the pandemic. At the final point, there is a discretionary money available for local authorities in the most recent tranches, £80 million, which they will have discretion in how they are supplied to their own areas. I hope that there is an overview of the support that has been provided and how it relates to what we have done on NDR relief. Thank you for that. It sounds like your postman's might be arrived or something. Could I further to that ask in terms of local authorities in handing down the powers to distribute that? What monitoring took place around that, specifically here in Edinburgh, for example, high number of hotel and bed and breakfast businesses and how that support was then monitored to see that it would actually get into the hands of those most needing it for different types of businesses specifically? I do not have the details in front of me. We do, of course. We have published on a Scottish Government website and most up-to-date statistics on the delivery of resources. Of course, local government provides returns on their spending for statistical analysis and monitoring from the Scottish Government. In terms of how funding is agreed with local government through COSLA, the £80 million of the subject of principles agreements about what was trying to be achieved there. Whether it be through the publications on overall business support, monitoring the return from local government or the principles agreements that we have with COSLA and allocating funding, there is a range of ways in which monitoring is the point of driving at Mr Biggs of ensuring that he might get to those who need it so that we can have it and start. One of the reasons that our counterparts in the UK Government decided to also not allow the appeals process based on Covid reasons was that it had put up £1.5 billion of the business rate support fund, which, as I remember, was announced in the 25th of March last year, the day after this Parliament went into recess for the election. Scotland's share of that support fund was to be £145 million. The committee raised that issue several times over the course of the year. Has that money been received and what are our plans to deploy it to support business in Scotland? That consequential is contingent upon the passing of the UK Act, which is taking place since I was last in front of the committee on this matter. That funding is included and committed as part of the budget process for the forthcoming year. What we have undertaken to do is not to wait but to provide support in advance. We had the £375 million of support that I referenced previously in Omicron. The key point that I would come back to is that, overall, our spending on business support is to £4.5 billion. That is over £400 million more than we have received in consequentials. Even including the money that should be fair, we have went above and beyond what is allocated to us via UK consequentials and support businesses. The most recent element of that is how it has been distributed. Overall, it is the recent £80 million to local authorities, which I touched on earlier. We have not hung about working to get the money out of business as and where it is needed. Through a range of methods, whether that has been granced in support for specific sectors such as wholesale or taxi drivers, but also through discretionary funding for local authorities, which they can then use to support businesses in a narrow area and a way that they think is most appropriate. I appreciate that, but it sounds to me that that money is still assumed that it has not been receded yet into the Scottish Government. The money has materialised part of the budget process, but, without getting into the intricacies and complexities of the budget process overall, we have found ourselves, as you will be aware, in quite a challenge in situations. I do not want to draw any direct correlations between the MCC money and other parts of the budget, because it is quite complex. If you take, for example, the resources that we were anticipating at supplementary estimates towards the end of last year and then to the early part of this year, we have seen a situation in which we have received less than we had anticipated. Beyond that, we were led to believe that we were receiving additional money to support cost of living, but we did not receive additional cost of living money. We had to find that, the £290 million that worked from within money that we had already previously had committed because, fundamentally, we have had a situation where the UK Government has given us an indication of money that is going to come. The money is less, and then there are new commitments that have to be made from that particular money, which we had not been led to believe that we would have to be met from that money, i.e., cost of living. You take an example. We expected to get £841 million of stock, so that was down to £827 million, if I remember correctly. Out of that, rather than getting £290 million of additional for cost of living, we have got to take back £290 million from that £827 million. This is something that we explored at the finance committee last week in string budget revision, but it is just to give you an example of the complexity that is involved at this particular point of the year around the budget. The key point that I want to come back to is that we have delivered significantly more in business sport than what we have received in consequentials, and we have worked to get that money out of the door as quickly as possible and as effectively as possible to the businesses who need it. Just until that is finally clarified or otherwise, I presume that the Scottish Government will continue to press for that consequential to be transferred to Scotland. Well, just to be clear, the consequential has understood that it was contingent upon the bill passing. That consequential has now been transferred and it has been incorporated into our existing spending plans, so it has just worked to be clear on that, Mr Corthy. The point that I am making overall is that it is important to look at the money that is made available to us via the Barnett formula. It has to be seen in a broader context. With Barnett, you have to look at what the net amount is, and sometimes there can be a particular budget line that is identified as increasing, but the actual net amount is reducing because of reduction in other budget lines, so it can create a complex set of circumstances in which to operate. The key point that I want to make is that, for that money that has been received as part of the budget process, the key message that I want to convey is that we have went above and beyond what we received in business support consequentials. We have spent £4.5 billion, and that includes in the money that we have delivered, a range of measures from tailored packages of support for particular sectors, from the 100 per cent RHL relief that we had in previous financial year and this financial year. We are delivering the 50 per cent relief in RHL for the first three months of the next financial year to avoid the cliff edge. We have also delivered that support for local government, £80 million for discretionary support as well. RHL, sector-specific grants, discretionary funding for local government, have delivered it in a range of ways that we have went above and beyond the resource that was allocated to us, including the MCC consequentials to which you refer. Thanks very much for that, minister, thank you. I think that we have come to the end of our question, so can I thank the witnesses for their evidence on the bill today? I now suspend the meeting briefly to allow a changeover of supporting officials. We now turn to agenda item 3, which is to take evidence on the non-domestic rates valuation role, modification, Scotland regulations 2022 from the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth. Mr Arthur is joined for this session by Scottish Government officials Anouk Berthier, NDR Policy Lead and Susan Rob Lawyer. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting. Before I open up to questions from the committee, I now invite Mr Arthur to make a short opening statement. Thank you, convener. This draft instrument under consideration today is purely technical and is attended to assist councillors in administering the business growth accelerator relief. PGA relief, which is unique in the UK, provides 100 per cent relief on new properties for 12 months after they are first occupied and 100 per cent relief for 12 months on property improvements. In order to facilitate the identification of eligible properties by councils, the non-domestic rates Scotland Act 2020 requires that the assessor put a mark on the valuation role to flag new and improved properties. We keep all our reliefs under review and in response to stakeholder feedback, PGA relief was expanded a number of times since the non-domestic rates act was passed. The draft instrument that we are discussing today merely takes that into account and aligns the definition of new and improved properties in this act with those properties that might be eligible for PGA relief from 1 April 2022. That will enable local authorities to distinguish the properties that are eligible for the relief. Those regulations specifically clarify that property improvements include concurrent change of use in the property or where there are improvements associated with the installation of certain plant and machinery, including the installation of store cells or store panels. The business growth accelerator is a flagship relief that has been praised by the business community and it was even highlighted in response to the UK Government's recent review as a policy that should be replicated in England. I would note for the committee's benefit that the UK Government has chosen to replicate it with a relief only for property improvements from 2023. The business growth accelerator relief in Scotland has been available not only to property improvements but also to new builds since 2018. The fact could be that I will conclude and I hope that members will support the instrument today. Thank you very much Minister for just outlining the purpose of this SSI. Do any members of the committee have questions for the minister? No one has any questions. I thank the minister and his officials for the evidence today. We now turn to agenda item 4, which is consideration of the motion on the instrument. I invite the minister to move motion S6M-02982 that the local government housing and planning committee recommends that a non-domestic rates valuation modification Scotland regulations be approved. Do members have any further questions for the minister? The question is that motion S6M-02982, in the name of Tom Arthur, be approved. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. We now turn to agenda item 3, which is to take evidence on the non-domestic rates valuation role. I am glad to see Graham that you have managed to join us. Thank you for that. The committee will publish its report on the instrument after the meeting. I now suspend briefly to allow a changeover of supporting officials before we move to agenda item 5. We now turn to agenda item 5, which is to take evidence on the local authority, capital finance and accounting, Scotland coronavirus amendment regulations 2022 from the Minister for Public Finance Planning and Community Wealth. Mr Arthur is joined for this item by Scottish Government officials Eleanor Davies, who is the head of local authority accounting and, once again, David Smith, who is a lawyer. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting and, before I open up to questions from the committee, I invite Mr Arthur to make a short opening statement. Last year, amendment regulations were laid in response to the financial pressures that are faced by local authorities as a result of the pandemic. The Scottish Government worked jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to identify ways for a local Government to address the funding pressure. The amendments sought in the 2021 regulations allowed a local authority to reduce the amount of any of the statutory repayments that were due to make to the statutory loan funds in either the financial year 2021 or 2021-22, but not both. That would reduce the expenditure of a local authority in that financial year, thus creating additional financial capacity to meet Covid-19 costs. Given the on-going challenges of responding to the pandemic, COSLA requested a further one-year extension to that flexibility to allow a local authority to reduce repayments to the statutory loan funds in 2022-23. Again, councils can only make use of that flexibility in one of the financial years. Most did not use that flexibility in either 2021 or 2021-22, but have indicated that the nature used to use that flexibility in 2022-23. Under normal circumstances, that is not something that ministers would support. Requiring the repayments to be made in the financial year that they are due is prudent financial management. It ensures that both current and future taxpayers charge for their share of the capital expenditure costs of assets being used to deliver services. However, those are not normal circumstances, and it seems right to allow the flexibility to be extended by the amendments that are made in those regulations. However, we have made it clear to local government that that flexibility should only be used as necessary to address funding pressures arising from the pandemic and may not be used to grow reserves. The 2021 regulations also include a provision to ensure that future changes to loans, fund accounting arrangements can be delivered through statutory guidance rather than requiring further amendments to regulations. That change, which was due to come into force on 1 April 2022, is to allow future harmonisation between accounting standards and statutory arrangements. In order to facilitate the extension to the loans on repayment flexibility, those regulations also defer by one year the effect of that provision in the 2021 regulations. Separately, the regulations also change the audit completion deadline for local government 2021-22 annual accounts, as requested by Audit Scotland, to address the continuing challenges as a result of the delay in auditing the 2019-20 and the 2020-21 accounts. Both Audit Scotland and councils are keen to return to the original statutory deadlines for 2022-23. In summary, those regulations provide a financial flexibility that has been asked for by local authorities and will be welcomed by local authorities. The extension of the audit deadline will alleviate some of the strain on council staff auditors. In fact, I will conclude and encourage the committee to support the instrument. Thank you, minister, for laying out the purpose of the amendment regulations. Do members have any questions for the minister? No questions. I thank the minister and his officials for evidence today. We now turn to agenda item 6, which is consideration of the motion on the instrument. I invite the minister to move motion S6M-02977 that the local government housing and planning committee recommends that the local authority, capital finance and accounting Scotland coronavirus amendment regulations 2022 be approved. The question is that motion S6M-02977 in the name of Tom Arthur be approved. Are we all agreed? The committee will publish its report on the instrument after the meeting. We now turn to agenda item 7, which is consideration of the following negative instruments, non-domestic rates coronavirus relief Scotland regulations 2022, non-domestic rates loving and miscellaneous amendment Scotland regulations 2022, non-domestic rates relief for new and improved properties Scotland regulations 22, non-domestic rates unoccupied property Scotland amendment regulations 2022. There is no requirement for the committee to make any recommendations on negative instruments. Do any members have any comments on the instruments? Is the committee agreed that we do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instruments? We agreed at the start of the meeting to take the next item in private as we have no more public business today and I now close the public part of the meeting.