 Good morning and welcome to the eighth meeting of the local government housing and planning committee in 2021. 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. Our first item this morning is consideration of whether to take item 3 and 4 in private. Item 3 will be the opportunity for members to reflect on the evidence that they have heard earlier in the meeting. Item 4 will be consideration of a draft of the committee's pre-budget correspondence to the Scottish Government. Do members agree to take items 3 and 4 in private? Agenda item 2 is an opportunity for the committee to take evidence to inform its scrutiny of the evaluation and rating coronavirus Scotland order 2021. This is the first of three sessions the committee will be holding on the order. I would like to begin by welcoming Mark Crothall, chief executive of the Scottish Tourism Alliance, Stuart McKinnon, head of communications and public affairs from the Federation of Small Businesses, Leanne Thompson, executive director of UK hospitality, Paul Togneri, senior policy manager from Scottish Beer and Pub Association and Colin Wilkinson, managing director from the Scottish Licensed Trade Association. Before I invite questions from members, can I ask that those participating in the session remotely press R in BlueJeans chat function if they wish to respond to a question? The BlueJeans chat function should not be used to write responses or questions, as it will not be recorded. My colleague Jenny will help me to keep track of the R function. I would like to start by inviting questions from members. Paul, do you want to take lead on the first theme? I welcome the panel. I refer everyone to my register of interests and I am an existing councillor in East Llywodraith Council. I want to look at the first lot of questions. The first question is whether witnesses agree with the Scottish Government that the coronavirus pandemic has affected the valuation of such a wide range of properties and business activities that it is more appropriate to take account of those effects at the next revaluation date. Can I ask Stuart McKinnon to answer that question and then open it up to the panel? Stuart McKinnon, first of all. Great. No problem. Thanks a lot, Paul. The evidence that we have gathered from our members suggests that the evidence in 10 of our rent-paying members have paid rent as normal throughout this crisis. Although we are concerned about that, such a small share of our members managed to win concessions from our landlords, it suggests to us that the bulk of our rent-paying members are facing similar conditions as they did before the crisis began. When we look at the particular proposal from the Government, we would highlight that the reliefs that the Scottish Government brought in have been far more important to our members and will continue to be more important to our members than opportunities to appeal to their valuation. Mark, you may not open up to anybody else who wants to come into the discussion. Thank you very much and good morning everybody. I echo a lot of what Stuart has just said. I mean it goes with obviously well documented the impacts that have been the sector and that's pan sector has felt over the last two years as a result of coronavirus. And notwithstanding that, I don't think that there's any part of the industry that hasn't been affected and many, if not the majority, have all traded below where they would want to be trading at a level of profitability to be able to both reinvest in their asset that people are unimportantly to stay competitive as we come through recovery and also repay the levels of debt that they've taken on. The Scottish tourism alliance is the overarching umbrella body for the sector and it's great to have colleagues from the hospitality and licence trade on the call here today who can articulate very well how their own member groups have been affected by this. It swings and roundabouts some parts of the sector have done better than others but there has without question been a lack of revenue and there remains real concern going forward that unless a form of relief is continued as to how these businesses may adapt and change and get themselves into a position where they can be competitive and importantly invest in people and their asset and also adapt as well to some of the net zero agenda challenges that are in front of them. So the reliefs of the last two years, business rates without question in my view from our members as saying has been the most welcomed relief and we have advocated that level of relief needs to continue beyond and the revaluation of the properties once we get to a trading period that is more reflective of what that likely position will be is the one that should be set. International recovery is by no means assert and certainly the trading period in the front in the next few months ahead of us are also going to be very, very difficult. So we would certainly support the view that the tone date that is set is one that is much more reflective to the trading performance going forward and as Stuart said for the majority I would anticipate the preference would be for continued relief as opposed to challenge some of the appeals that are in play at the moment. Thank you for that and we've got actually Leon Paul and then Colin would like to come in on this. So Leon. Good, thank you very much convener. Good morning committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. In answer to the question Paul, I think what I would say is that to echo Mark's comments hospitality has been one of the hardest hit debtors during the pandemic. It's been possibility business of largely being closed or unable to trade fully for the last 18-19 months and that's such a quick incredible strain on those businesses that have racked up a short-term and long-term debt throughout that period. The rates relief that the Scottish Government has applied for two years is incredibly welcome and that's absolutely the key element of the conversation right now around business rates. As Mark was explaining what happens next is absolutely critical in terms of the potential for relief to continue in some form, which I think is going to be absolutely critical for businesses if we want to avoid that kind of cliff edge next April. I think that that's probably what businesses are most focusing on rather than necessarily appeals just now. I suppose that what I would say is that removing the right to appeal seems to go against the practice of having a fair and transparent taxation system. Probably right now that's not the key concern for our members or for the majority of hospitality businesses who will be very much focused on what happens after April 22 and then of course April 23 at the revaluation date as well. Really what we need to be moving to at that point is a system that more accurately reflects the business and the profits being made by hospitality businesses. I thank the committee for inviting us along today. I would 100% agree with the comments of my colleagues. The two-year relief has been instrumental and vital in keeping some hospitality businesses afloat and keeping them trading to this point. With that being said, we have lost an estimated 400 pubs in Scotland since the start of the pandemic. That's roughly 10 per cent. During the year 2020, we estimate that around 12 billion has been lost in revenue for the sector. That relief has been instrumental for the past two years. As colleagues have already said, it will be vital that some of that is maintained to support businesses as we go forward. I 100% agree with colleagues looking ahead to the next revaluation date as well. That would be the preference, but absolutely we just share the comments of colleagues. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I agree entirely with the comments that have been made by my colleagues. The whole issue of commercial rates has been a very contentious one for many years in the industry, particularly because we proportionately pay far greater percentage of our turnover in rates than any other business sector. It is going forward that we are looking at at the moment that we need continuing relief, but we really need to have an overall review of commercial rates, particularly for our sector, because we can't carry on like this. Businesses are on a precipice just now. As Paul said, we have lost about 400 pubs in Scotland. We are not out of this yet, and we are very concerned that that figure will increase. Just to slightly expand on that, a few people have mentioned about the appeals. I just want to ask a question about the material changes circumstances appeals. Are they an appropriate route for specific factors affecting individual properties or a limited number of properties? I think that Leon, you slightly touched on that and maybe opened up for yourself, but I just want to get your thoughts specifically on that issue. Yes, sure. The issue there is certainly for some businesses. They will be caught by this, and they may well feel that they are being unfairly disadvantaged by not being able to appeal for the bulk of businesses. The focus is very much on what happens next. Closing down the opportunity to appeal does go against having an open taxation policy. That is something that needs to be born and mined here. We do not want to set any precedent where the go-posts can be moved. We need that to be as transparent as possible for businesses and to give businesses who are and feel that their circumstances have changed and that they have not had the necessary support and recompense thus far that they have somewhere to go if they want to appeal. I will move on in theme to the parliamentary process, and I want to invite Megan Gallagher to lead on that. Before I go into questions, I am an existing councillor in North Lanarkshire, and therefore I would like to refer everyone to my register of interests. As the convener said, I would like to discuss themes surrounding the parliamentary process, in particular in relation to the consultation process. I would like to ask the panel whether they believe that there was sufficient consultation on the proposals and if they had an opportunity to comment on the planned changes, especially during Covid-19 and the challenges that that has brought. If I could start with Leon Pleas and the ensure. Has there been sufficient opportunity to engage in the process? I do not think that there has. For businesses, it has probably come as a bit of a surprise. There has been a movement at Westminster on that, so we are moving into line with Westminster. There is a precedent there already. To answer the question for me, this would be my first opportunity to engage with Parliament and simply with the Scottish Government. This has been the first opportunity to get a point of view out on this move. Thank you. At the FSB, we are in fairly regular discussion with and race officials specifically. Although we have not discussed a particular move, we have discussed the wider race landscape at the point of the UK Government making a similar decision to prevent MCC appeals. There was some discussion with officials about the implications of that change. Paul has indicated that he would like to come in on this. Yes, thank you very much, convener. Just to echo the comments of colleagues again, as Leon Pleas said, this was really the first consultation that we were formally having on the issue, but I would say that we have almost daily dialogue with the Scottish Government and the focus has really been business survival at this point, getting through the pandemic. That has really been where the focus of ourselves and our conversations with Government, but I think that where the businesses themselves have been, it is well known, the impact on the sector. This is the first real opportunity that we are having to directly engage on the issue. Just because we are exploring that theme, if I could ask Leon Pleas and Paul to come back in to advise if they believe that there has been more of an opportunity for stakeholders to feed in views, if all changes have been introduced via primary legislation, would that have made a beneficial change? Yes, I think that that certainly helps. I am not sure that I have really got much more to add on that. As Paul was saying, I think that we have probably spent a lot of time managing the immediate issues that have been affecting businesses, and this has just not really been on the radar. Yes, absolutely. I agree with Leon Pleas on that. I think that primary legislation always gives a greater opportunity for scrutiny, for engagement, for those that impact. However, as Leon Pleas said, the focus of the sector at the moment has really been on the pandemic, on restrictions and making sure that we can get through to the other side of that. Yes, I think that just coming back in general, the Scottish Tourism Emergency Response Group, Sturck, which fortnightly convened pretty much every week, along with the sector groups as well. As my colleagues have said, the focus has been very much on the here and now and the recovery in the short to immediate term. The recommendations that the tourism task force has now tabled with the Scottish Government to go through the second phase of recovery again does not look at much else in the rate system other than the need for a form of continued rates relief for reasons that have already been stated with the cliff edge of potential rise in obviously incremental costs as well and the likely return to trading. However, like others, this is the first formal engagement that I have had on this particular issue. I will move on to the theme of workload issues, and I will pick up on that. The 40,000-plus Covid-related MCC appeals are facing assessors and valuation committees at a time when they have limited capacity for the processing of appeals. Due to the pandemic, a smaller proportion of appeals have been resolved at this stage in the re-evaluation cycle compared to the last cycle. While assessors have tried to catch up, they are also needing to spend time on the initial stages of the next valuation, which is due in 2023. If they were to grant many of the Covid-related MCC appeals, that would likely lead to further appeals being lodged and successful appeals would need to be regularly reviewed as the Covid legislation and guidance changes. Given all of that, is it feasible for assessors and valuation committees to assess coronavirus-related MCC appeals with the time and resources that they currently have? I will direct that to Colin and Stewart. As we said earlier, the MCC appeals for Covid is at the back of people's minds. It is what is going to happen going forward. It is very important that we get the revaluation right. It is very important that businesses are on-going. As I have said, there needs to be some kind of reform or on-going relief. Whether that is in the form of a part of support from the Government financially, or do we look at, which is in the powers of the Government, perhaps we can act a system whereby we have a varied poundage rate, particularly for sectors such as ours that have been, we would argue, hit the hardest over the last 18 months, two years. I think that that is the main thing, to be honest, is what is going to happen going forward. I would add that, again, I agree with my colleagues what they said in the previous question. We have had no opportunity to discuss this matter. I will talk specifically about the appeal system generally and then come to the issue that you mentioned specifically. The evidence that we have gathered suggests that the non-domestic rates appeal system does not work particularly well for Scotland's small businesses. After the last revaluation, the fifth of our members chose to appeal only a fifth, and the bulk of them chose to represent themselves. The anecdotes suggest that businesses that represent themselves through that system tend to be unsuccessful, broadly because we are not arguing whether their valuations are unfair if the challenge is to argue that they are inaccurate. At this point, as we look towards the next revaluation and the Barclay review reforms that are in the pipeline, we need to realise that if we are going to deliver a more frequent revaluation cycle, policy makers have recognised that they need to dramatically reduce the number of appeals that are in the system. With many of the Barclay reviews yet to be implemented, I can understand why the Scottish Government might arrive at the conclusion that mid-cycle or MCC appeals are not appropriate at this time. However, I would argue that that one way to reduce the number of MCC appeals in the pipeline at this moment would be to provide details of reliefs that are going to come in place after April of next year. Thank you for that. Does anybody else want to come in on that question about workload, or processing appeals? No? I will move on to the next theme, which is local authority revenue, and Miles will pick that up. I wanted to touch upon a few questions on what local government can also do to support the use of resources. The Scottish Government stated that rolling out Covid-19 appeals will ensure that the limited public resources that are available are effectively targeted to support the most effective businesses and sectors in the recovery period. Beyond MCC, I was wondering what the panel thought local authorities could also be doing to support you, so we can harvest that sort of information today. I know that you touched upon Poundage rate earlier than Stuart. Yes. The problem that we have is particularly with Scottish assessors and the way that they value licence premises. That has always been the big issue that we have. As I said, we are looking at 8.25 per cent of our turnover. If there is more assistance from local authorities through the assessors to look at licence premises, we have to have an overhaul of the rating system. I know that we have had that through the Barclay review, but that recognised that there was still a problem for the licence hospitality trade. Local councils would get on board with us, because we are a very important industry. If we look at the state or high streets that are in at the moment, in many places, it could be the hospitality industry as the key player in those situations. We need as much help as we possibly can get. I think that throughout this crisis, local authorities have had a key role in supporting their local economies and local businesses. Many councils and many, specifically the non-domestic rates teams within their councils, worked extremely hard to distribute grants to businesses. In some cases, we would like to see that money move more quickly. Much of the business community should extend their thanks to council workers who did such a good job in difficult circumstances. One of the key advantages of a national relief is that it is paid by for central government. That is one of the advantages over an appeals-based route for businesses to reduce their overheads as we enter this recovery period. What we have seen are many local authorities in Scotland offering new grant support for businesses into the recovery phase. We have seen many local authorities offering grant support for businesses to expand their digital capabilities. We are very supportive of that. One thing that I would highlight is that local authorities across Scotland have the power to introduce local reliefs. We tend not to see those powers used very often. There may be an opportunity for local authorities, perhaps in partnership with the Scottish Government, to look at whether that is the time to provide more localised reliefs in our city centres that look like those who seem to be facing persistent problems as a consequence of the changing and working and living habits as a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic. We are very supportive of the comments that Stewart just made. A key point is partnership. Throughout the pandemic, local authorities and the teams within local authorities have worked incredibly well with businesses. We want to look at how we keep those partnerships going. Hospitality businesses are absolutely at the heart of community and place. We need to keep those strong relationships going as we move forward. Thank you very much, convener. I absolutely echo the comments from our colleagues on that. The support has been coming from local authorities or from central government via local authorities directly. It has been instrumental in keeping those businesses afloat. In terms of what extra things can be done, it is looking at our high streets, our communities and the whole and seeing what can be done to support that. Every pub contributes around about £100,000 into the local economy, so it is very instrumental, as others have said, in being at the heart of those communities. There is a range of reliefs that can be done to support the hospitality sector. For example, we have seen a lot of the waving of fees for outdoor tables on pavements, which is hugely costly in normal terms. The removal of those fees has been extremely helpful. Of course, we are trying to encourage people to be outside as well. That has been helpful, but we have seen other instances across Scotland of local authorities acting to support their local communities in high streets. Any reliefs that we get, as others have said, is instrumental in keeping us afloat. We are grateful to the local authorities for doing that and the council workers who have been fantastic at getting those grants processed. As others have said, we would have ideally liked it to be a little bit quicker, but, by and large, the work that they have done has been instrumental. I echo everything that everybody has said about the local authority support. You-like-body representing COSLA sits on the Scottish Tourism Emergency Response Group and has been a huge contributor to everything that that group has done over the course of the pandemic. Scotland Outlook 2030, which is our national tourism strategy, was launched by the First Minister only three days before Covid took grip. It is still a very relevant strategy, and we have been working with the recommendations, if through recovery, to align our focus into the priority areas for that strategy and those four key priority areas around people, business, place and experience. The importance of local community and bringing communities with us in rebuilding tourism and spreading tourism around the country so that the benefits of the sector can be felt by all communities is key. The conditions for success are very much required to have the right policy, the right investment into infrastructure, the right support in upskilling our people, the digital boost programmes that was referred to by Stuart, just being some of those, the broader issue of having more affordable housing, but also recognising, I think, in all of their local agendas of just how important tourism is to driving the recovery to those local communities. But equally important to that is supporting supply chains as well. The support local campaign that Scottish Townsend City initiated is one that we very much endorse. Encouraging businesses to be more diversified in their product offering is also key, and Paul touched on the now very clear ability for us to enjoy Alfresco dining in Scotland 24x7 is something that I think we all need to continue to support, because businesses have invested a lot of money into being able to make themselves able to do that, and it would be wrong if they are suddenly penalised by a local authority if they cannot build on that, particularly as our culture has become more used to eating outdoors as well as indoors in the future. Thanks for that, Mark. I think that it can also help to support our winter clothes industry as well if we keep our Alfresco dining going forward. That is all the questions that I have from that section. I will hopefully come in theme 5, if I can, Carina. Great. We are going to move on to our fifth and final theme, which is other forms of business support. I am going to invite a colleague who is coming in hybrid on BlueJeans, Willie Coffey, to start that theme. Thank you very much, Carina. Good morning to the panel. I hope you can hear me. Okay. I have had to switch devices during the session to be able to connect with you. I wanted to ask your views on whether you think that the MCC process in general gives us the most effective mechanism to target the support that is needed. We just heard from Stuart Lee a moment ago that he said that only a fifth of small businesses generally appeal their valuations and so on. I am aware that the UK Government announced back in March a £1.5 billion support relief scheme that they say will enable local government to properly target those small businesses and businesses that perhaps need support most. I do not think that that money has been made available yet, but could I just ask for views on whether that approach would seem to be a better one rather than a broader MCC appeal process? Maybe Stuart Lee could start and answer that one, please. Thank you. I would absolutely agree with the UK Government and the Welsh Government when they said that a relief package was the best means of getting rate support to businesses, many of whom will not have been able to use their property for large chunks of the crisis. Asking them for property taxes while they cannot effectively use their properties, a relief seems appropriate at that time, whereas an appeals process is obviously only open to the businesses that lodge the appeals and what they tend to find—not across the board, but what they tend to find is that it is larger organisations that tend to use property professionals and others to argue those particular cases. The other key point in the mix is about pace of delivery. One thing is that a relief can be implemented fairly quickly, but an MCC appeal and the wider appeal system tends to move quite slowly. That is another key advantage for a relief over an appeals route to reduce bills for businesses. Thank you for that, Stuart. Other panel members, could you offer a view on that point, please? Yes. I think that just echoing and building on what Stuart said, I think that looking at what businesses are being asked to do and need to do and want to do in terms of investing in their asset, in their people and, obviously, applying the adaptations, in many cases, to become more sustainable and align to the challenges of the net zero targets that we are all striving to achieve. They need to have a clear signal of relief being off their balance sheet sooner rather than later to make those commitments. We have not only seen rising costs in energy and the supply chain in general. Many businesses have been in the sector paying way in excess of the minimum wage to attract talent in as well, and they want to be able to sustain that. However, if there was an uncertainty around any future relief or a different approach to that relief being afforded, I fear that many will not be able to be competitive and employ the level of people in which the sector can go ahead and employ to help to recover. Importantly, we need to invest in those new people, because we do not, unfortunately, have enough people in the pool of population. That will take time. The cliff edge that we have all referred to on the call so far is still looming. The sooner the indication is given by the Scottish Government on what that relief might look like going forward, and, likewise, hopefully the UK Government on the current level of that being maintained beyond the end of March next year, the better and more confidence that that will give to the industry. Definitely, a relief system is going to be better, fairer and more targeted than the current appeals system. The figures that Stewart has shared with the committee bear that out. What that demonstrates is that there are fundamental flaws in the business rate system at the moment, with businesses choosing to go down and larger businesses choosing to go down that appeals route. That suggests that we really are at a point where we need to be looking at business rates fully and looking at a fairer system for all businesses, seeing more businesses paying and paying their share than perhaps they are at the moment in lifting the burden from hospitality businesses. On the point about money that Westminster is making available, I understand that there are consequentials for Scotland coming up to about £145 million. It would certainly be good to hear how that money will be used in the form of relief in due course by the Scottish Government. As others have said, the preference would be for the relief system for the reasons outlined by my colleagues in terms of the surety and the time that it would take, but also to highlight the wider economic issues that the sector is still facing. We have real concerns about inflationary costs at the moment. The costs of electricity and gas are well documented, but businesses have no cap, such as domestic properties, so that is another concern for us. The impact on staff was something that was alive to us and of concern even before the pandemic. Brexit has had a real impact on our staffing levels, but the pandemic has also had a real impact. We are still suffering at a huge shortage there, so being able to invest in employees by bringing new people on board and supporting those current employees. As Mark has said, we have had a lot of increased pay, as a result of trying to attract people into those industries. Any further relief and sooner that can be released and revealed the better for the sector. Mark Wight wants to come in on that as well. Yes, just a couple of other points. Again, businesses that are reporting suppliers to industry are now increasingly looking for an amount of money to be lodged on deposit. Therefore, the cash flow has been cut back. For example, world pay, which is one of the transactional platforms that many of us would pay by through our card system, Port of Adding Marina. As an example, it had something like £250,000 worth of revenue had gone through that system. In August of this year, World Play announced that it wanted to retain £100,000 of that revenue on credit, so it was not released into the business. Other utility companies are also doing the same. Therefore, the ability for access to cash and to do what businesses need to do is obviously less on top of the inflationary challenges that we all face. From a national point of view, the strategic aim of Scotland is to be the world leader in 21st century tourism. We are starting a bit behind the curve when it comes to our competitors, who are ahead of the game in terms of attracting international markets. International inbound tourism is approximately 42 per cent of the total revenue mix, and that will not return to the levels of 19 or even to the levels that we would expect and want them to be for a good few months yet, if not into the back end of 2022 as well. There is a lot of work to be done still, and that competitiveness piece is really important. We need our businesses to be absolutely well invested in. Our people are importantly trained and recruited, so we are capable of presenting the product that Scotland wants to present and the industry aspires to as well. One thing to add, I fully agree with all my colleagues have said, but if it is to go down a system where there is further rates relief, that should be targeted and focused on the businesses that are most in need, because there have been some businesses that have done very well through the Covid period, so I think that it should be focused on those who are most in need. Thank you very much to the panel for answering that question. Thank you. I want to bring in Elena Whitham, who is also joining us virtually. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to the panel. Before I ask my questions, I would just like to refer everybody to my register of interests. I'm still a serving councillor in East Ayrshire Council. My first question is quite a general question. We've heard about that really fantastic joint collaborative work that's happened between local government and the businesses in their local areas, but just in general, how effective do you think that the support for businesses has been targeted in response to the pandemic? That is both spheres of government, whether that is UK national government, Scottish government or local government, which we've heard quite a lot about so far. If I can perhaps direct that to Stuart to start with, please. Throughout the crisis, we saw decision makers be quite clear that there was no way that they could fully compensate businesses for the lost income that they would face as a consequence of some of those public health measures. For example, the grants regime that was delivered in Scotland, the £10,000 and £25,000 grants, the cap sector finance, was quite clear that that wasn't meant to fully compensate businesses for their lost revenue, but it was helped to mitigate the immediate pressures that businesses were facing. We have to, anecdotally, we know that many businesses exhaust their cash reserves. We know that Scottish businesses took on about £4 billion worth of debt through the C bills and B bills, Government-backed loan schemes alone, so it's obvious that businesses hadn't had to borrow because the other mechanisms to support them weren't sufficient. I would accept that there was a need to get for money to reach businesses quickly, and for the sake of pace, some elements of targeting were lost. If we look at a lot of the economic data produced by people such as the Bank of England and others, it looks like the burden of the crisis in economic terms was felt disproportionately by small and medium-sized businesses, as opposed to their larger counterparts. That's why we are arguing that, as we enter into the recovery phase, Government at all levels should really be focusing on helping small and medium-sized firms to support every second private sector job in the country to get back on their feet, simply because we don't think that local communities will recover until their local business communities are firing on all cylinders. Looking to the future, obviously, we are talking about rates today, and we are saying that additional support, specifically for small businesses outside of the scope of the small business bonus in the next financial year, might be necessary. However, as Governments make tax and spending decisions, we need to give local and independent businesses time to recover, to pay down their debts, to grapple with the challenge of, say, rising energy bills and another rising overheads, as colleagues have spoken to, and not clobber them with tax rises. There are some concerns, as we see, for instance, the increase in NICS, which will have a disproportionate impact on small businesses. That's why, for instance, we are looking for the Chancellor to announce an expansion to the employment allowance when he starts up some more. Paul, do you want to come in on that, too? Yes, no. I agree with the points that Stewart made there. As he said, the cabinet secretary was quite clear at the start of the process that the idea was to allow a bridge to the other side of the crisis for the majority of businesses, and I think that the grants have by and large delivered that. As I mentioned earlier, we have lost 400 pubs since the start of the pandemic, but without the economic support it would have been much, much more than that. I think that, although it has been very, very positive, it has not been perfect in every instance. I think that in the first round of grants, businesses with a rateable value of above £51,000 did not receive any economic support. Those businesses had the same proportionate share of costs, more staff to support, and, again, most likely larger bills to pay. That was something that I was concerned for pretty much at the beginning. I think that we have also saw later on in the pandemic that the support perhaps did not quite line up with the restrictions. I am thinking in particular, for example, when pubs could not serve alcohol or open late in the evening, I believe that they were entitled to the same grant support as those who would be more traditionally seen as a cafe, for example. However, later on, I think that in the third round of grants, there was additional support for those over 51K. There was a lot of engagement with the sector. Ourselfs on the call and other colleagues were very closely engaged with Government on that. Although I think that it was not perfect and there were definitely inconsistencies in the grant support, the key thing was that it moved quite quickly and, without that, it would have left more businesses unsure of their survival. We would have seen a lot more businesses fail had it not been for that support. Again, it is not perfect but, by and large, absolutely vital in keeping a lot of those businesses alive and trading today. Thank you, Paul. Mark and Leon, what do you want to come in? Thank you. I would echo a lot of what has been said. I think that everybody was faced with what was a new situation to deal with and having to change from their day-to-day job into doing something that was new to them as well. PACE was at times a challenge but, without the relief that has been provided, as Paul said, many would have failed. In some cases, it was a bit of a learn as you go, but, from a tourism perspective, I would like to put on record hats off to colleagues at Visit Scotland who, in particular, have managed a series of targeted sectoral funds to the inbound sector, the marine sector, the tour operators, the coach guys and everybody who has facilitated those grants have been absolutely exemplary in their efforts to try to move them as quickly as possible. The grant criteria has always been one that is engaged with the industry to shape what that criteria would be. However, I will pick up on Paul's point about perhaps not being able to acknowledge, in a proportionate way, the impacts of a lockdown in a particular local authority area, if it was largely a central belt area. There was a direct knock-on impact into parts of the country where they were their customer base. Any relief being able to be afforded to those in the more rural parts of many of those businesses—were small businesses as well—were unable to access support because it was not joined up. However, it is compensated for the loss of revenues, as we all know would be the case. However, we continue to make the case for key sectors that will need targeted support as well and how we can, I suppose, quicken the delivery mechanism of that fund to allow those businesses to trade in a constructive and positive way to recover. I think that many would say that we are still not in that recovery piece yet. We are still very much in a survival mode. We have obviously had the additional £25 million that was announced by the First Minister back in March this year to support the initial 10 recommendations that the task force put forward to help to drive recovery. A lot of that is in train at the moment and support as well from Skills Development Scotland to help recover and retain our existing workforce and upskill them, too. Hats off to those who have done it. Obviously, the learnings that we have all taken have been important. If we go again, hopefully, it will be even more smoother than it has been in the more recent times than it was at the outset. Thank you for that, Mark. I realise that there are a couple of other folks who want to come in on this, but in the interest of time, I think that I would like to come back to Eleanor and see if you want to ask any more questions before we move to Miles. Thanks, convener. It is just a quick mop-up, because the next question that I had was actually answered in part by Stewart to my colleague Willie Coffey's question. It is just to give the panel an opportunity to explore the fact that it feels that there are some businesses, perhaps larger businesses, as Stewart had mentioned, who are able to bring in those professional advisors to help them with an MCC appeals process, who, as Colin Rightley pointed out, perhaps have benefited during the pandemic more than those small and medium-sized enterprises who have perhaps been hit more. However, it is just if the panel has any final thoughts on that aspect and how we can make sure that those small and medium-sized businesses who perhaps could not avail themselves of the MCC appeals process, how can we ensure that they get the adequate and correct work going forward from this moment? I will now bring that back to Colin, if he has any thoughts on it, because he is the one who mentioned it in the first place. I am sure that my colleagues also provide a service, but the Scottish Licence Rate Association and I work with Gerald Eve, and we promote to our members a service whereby, through that company, they can put in an appeal for them. We have done that for a number of years, but getting the message out to them is always a difficulty, of course, but there is a service there that we provide, I think, of colleagues as well, to advise members on what they should do, and we make a recommendation that they speak to that company. So, there is a system that we provide for our members. Okay, thank you. I am going to move over to Miles. Thank you, convener. There was more on the back of Elena's question there, because I wanted to ask—specifically, Paul, you had mentioned 400 pubs, 10 per cent of the Scottish total had failed during the pandemic. We know that the rates relief is already in place through the small business bonus for up to £15,000, so those smaller businesses and smaller premises would not necessarily benefit. I wondered in terms of your experience from the panel of what businesses have failed during the pandemic and whether or not there is a collaboration between the rateable value of those businesses. We will start with Paul, as I name-checked you for the information. Yeah, thanks very much, Miles. I do not think that we have the sort of breakdown of that available to us yet. The 400 figure comes from CGA, so it has definitely got that professional backing. We are positive, not positive, but we have faith in that figure, but it does not go into that sort of further detail. I think that anecdotally, we probably have seen some smaller businesses fail as a result, probably due to cash reserves, issues that we have had there, and again the ability for them to apply for grants and to weather the storm, so to speak. I do not think that we necessarily have that sort of breakdown at the moment. I am sure that we will see further details come out and patterns emerge, but I do not think that that is something that has a clear picture across the board yet. Colleagues may wish to come in and add their thoughts, but I do not think that we have a clear picture at the moment where those businesses are failing. Of course, there have been different impacts in different areas that some colleagues have touched on. Your city centre premises with the loss of international visitors, with the loss of office trade may be the ones that are more impacted than your suburban premises, or your more rural premises. Again, people wanting to get out and about into the countryside are where I was just being at home. People have not been inside city centres as much, so it is quite likely that there may be an uptick there. However, as far as the sector is concerned, we are not out the woods yet in terms of the pandemic. We still have, of course, some restrictions in terms of the baseline measures on properties and a close Covid certification has came in and impacted some of those premises as well. We are not quite out the woods yet, there may still be further business failures depending on the economic situation going forward. However, I do not think that there is a completely clear picture as of yet at who and what type of businesses those are, but that will, hopefully, emerge relatively soon. You know, naturally, at the moment, larger licensed businesses are getting the retail hospitality and leisure relief, so there is no difference between them and recipients of the small business bonus, at least in rates terms. What I would highlight today is that, naturally, on a panel with lots of representations of the hospitality and leisure industry, there is obviously a larger picture here as well. I would like to speak to some of our other members' issues. Over the course of the crisis, we saw many independent, sub-non-essential businesses closed for large parts of the crisis while their larger counterparts were allowed to keep trading. We know that smaller businesses are less likely to have large cash reserves in comparison to their larger counterparts. As we move into the next phase of the crisis, we need to look at policy arrangements that help small and medium-sized businesses to get back on their feet. However, I would also highlight that there are many small and medium-sized firms that operate from slightly more valuable premises outside of the small business bonus. We would like the Scottish Government to explore mechanisms to get help to them if the current broad relief comes to an end in April of next year. To mention the small business bonus scheme, many of what we would term as small licence premises or medium-sized licence premises do not qualify for that. In many cases, they are paying the supplementary rate. We are back to the issue of how our rating affects that. A couple of points on business failure in general. Paul has touched on the impacts in the city. When you look at the loss of office trading and international, it has been hugely impactful. Some of the smaller cafes and restaurants are closed. It is purely purely to demand levels, not being there and, obviously, workforce. Many of our properties right across the country in the sector are only trading at less than 100 per cent capacity because of their inability to provide a service. You will see more and more properties trading five days out of seven or reduced menu offering, etc. There are some niche sectors, such as the golf tourism industry. Again, we have had no international visitors, so a lot of those guys have suffered, too. Importantly, I will pick up on Stuart's point about the small businesses that are essential to front-line hospitality in our sector being able to trade in the supply chain. Looking at the Scottish Wedding Industry Alliance's wedding sector, it has formed itself. There are a huge number of suppliers to that industry, too, who have been supported by the Government. If we do not have a stable supply chain, it is very difficult to deliver the front-end as well. Relief in looking at the ecosystem of tourism and hospitality is absolutely critical. As we said earlier, there is the lifeblood of many local communities as well, whether that be the florist, the carpenter or the workforce that can provide front-line services, and to help to address them with the mental health challenges that people have been facing. We have come to the end of our questions. I want to say thank you so much for all of you coming to give evidence. It was interesting to hear that, from some of your perspectives, this was the first time that you were able to get your points of view across. We really appreciate that. Now we are going to move on in our meeting into a private session.