���˿���

I recognise that point, but it is important to be clear that NPF4 is not a capital spend option.

In the delivery plan, there is a range of capital spend programmes. Infrastructure investment and the strategy on housing to 2040 contain aspects of that. When we publish the delivery plan alongside the final NPF4 for Parliament to consider, a lot of that will be brought together. However, ultimately, we appreciate that development is not just about public sector investment; the private sector has an enormous role to play in that. The delivery plan will be published alongside the final NPF4, and that will demonstrate the co-ordinated approach that the committee is asking for.

First, we need to recognise the reforms that are already under way. We had the Barclay review, which reported a few years back, although some of its final recommendations will not come into effect until next year. We recently had the report from the Fraser of Allander Institute on the small business bonus scheme. One of the issues that it identified concerned data. We are in the process of establishing a short-life working group to look at those recommendations, and we are taking further action on, for example, the devolution of empty property relief, as I mentioned earlier.

As for the call for full-scale reform, I note that, beyond Barclay, the United Kingdom Government recently had a review of non-domestic rates in England. Ultimately, it landed on, in effect, what we have already introduced—for example, moving from five-year to three-year valuation cycles. Indeed, England still has a two-year tone date, whereas we have moved to a one-year tone date to ensure that, at revaluation, prevailing market conditions are reflected as much as possible.

In the context of the revaluation in 2023, and given the experience of the past few years, I understand the importance of stability for the sector. We should remember that issues relating to non-domestic rates have a huge impact across a wide range of sectors. Our immediate priority will be completion of the implementation of the Barclay reforms, and the short-life working group will consider the Fraser of Allander Institute’s report. Any considerations beyond those that take place specifically at budget time would have to be taken in line with our tax framework, which we published in December last year. As well as the Adam Smith principles, it includes a principle on engagement. Any NDR changes that might take place would therefore have to be preceded by considerable engagement with all sectors and businesses that would be impacted by them. Of course, although that is an important issue for our town and city centres, it goes far beyond that.

You will appreciate that the planning system must operate in a way that is consistent with legislation. What we have set out in NPF4 will be subject to our reflections following the parliamentary scrutiny process and public consultation, and we will bring that back to the Parliament in due course.

On planning policy, we have set out quite clear direction not just in specific policies on town centres, but in policies on urban edges and retail. Within the 35 policies in the policy handbook, there are clear policies on promotion of town centres and on seeking to limit out-of-town developments. Ultimately, decisions have to be made by planning authorities, and those decisions have to be consistent with their local development plans, unless material considerations suggest otherwise. The specific issue of limiting out-of-town developments and promoting town centres first is explicit within the draft national planning framework 4.

I am conscious of how deep a subject that is. If you are content, I will be happy to come back in writing to provide some examples and to elaborate on some of the points that we have made.

Broadly speaking, the aim of the bill is to ensure that, with effect from 2 April 2020, no matter that is attributable to coronavirus can be taken into account in a non-domestic property’s net annual value or rateable value in the 2017 valuation roll.

Section 2 will amend section 2(1)(e) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975, which places a legal duty on assessors to alter the valuation roll in certain circumstances while the roll is in force. The 2017 roll is in force until 31 March 2023. Section 2 will expand those circumstances by adding “the coming into force” of the bill.

As the committee will be aware, we have extended the disposal date for appeals until 31 December 2023 so that appellants can make an informed decision as to whether they wish to pursue an appeal once Parliament has finished considering the bill. Should any appeals continue to be pursued after the passage of the bill, it is possible that they might not be determined by 31 March 2023, given the time that it can take for complex appeals to be resolved.

Amendment 2 will remove section 2 and introduce an altogether new provision that creates a new duty requiring the assessor to apply the rule in section 1 to the current valuation roll and to make any resulting change to the net annual value or rateable value of any lands and heritages. The new provision also makes it clear that that obligation applies both while the current 2017 valuation roll is still in force and thereafter.

Our intention is to make it very clear that, should appeals continue to be pursued after the bill is passed, and should any values be reduced with effect from any period prior to 2 April 2020 as a result of a matter that is attributable to coronavirus, the assessor would be required to reverse that change with effect from 2 April 2020 in the 2017 valuation roll. As I have explained, there is no change to the policy intention. Instead, the amendments are intended to strengthen it, and we have discussed them with assessors to ensure that, from a technical perspective, they will do so. I hope that the committee agrees that the new wording makes that intention clearer, while also recognising that any Covid-19 appeals that appellants wish to pursue might not be resolved by 31 March 2023, particularly given the extended disposal deadline of 31 December 2023.

Amendment 3, which is consequential on amendment 2, will add to section 3 a definition of the term “assessor” for the purposes of the bill and ensure that references to that term in the bill are interpreted consistently and with reference to existing legislation. I hope that members will support both amendments.

I move amendment 2.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3—Interpretation

Amendment 3 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 4 to 6 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

The revaluation that is scheduled for 2023 has a tone date of April this year. We have a one-year tone date, so the tone date for the revaluation for April 2026 will be April 2025.

The time between the 2023 revaluation being completed and the start of the 2026 revaluation is the period during which there will be further consideration of how more information can be provided and what information that will be. We will try to strike a balance to deliver as much information across as many property classes as possible, while recognising commercial sensitivity and, importantly, assessor workload, as I mentioned.

Following the 2023 revaluation, we will continue to engage with assessors and consult them on how we can expand the amount of information that is provided ahead of the 2026 revaluation.

As you would expect, I will caveat my answer by recognising the independence of assessors. The question is apropos of the legislation that we were considering earlier. General economic and market conditions are best considered at revaluation. The reforms that we have implemented in which we have moved from a five-year revaluation cycle to a three-year cycle, and from a two-year tone date to a one-year date, mean that valuations will be more reflective of prevailing market conditions. However, in the legislative context in which we operate, it is of course for individual assessors to determine the RV for properties, and there is a well-established process for appeals to be raised by individual ratepayers who wish to do so.

Broadly speaking, the bill’s principal rule is that, in the calculation of the net annual value or rateable value in relation to any property in the 2017 valuation roll, no account can be taken of any matter occurring on or after 2 April 2020 that is directly or indirectly attributable to coronavirus. That date is consistent with non-domestic rates policy regarding the definition of “material change of circumstances”, and the circumstances in which general economic factors can be regarded as being relevant to a change in valuation.

Amendment 1 will add a new subsection to section 1 to make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that in the application of the bill’s principal rule, 2 April 2020 is the effective date from which a determination cannot reflect any matter that is attributable to coronavirus in rateable value or net annual value. It clarifies that, in the calculation of the net annual value or rateable value of any lands and heritages for the purposes of an entry in the valuation roll, should a matter that is attributable to coronavirus first occur before 2 April 2020 and continue to occur on or after that date, no account can be taken of that matter, with effect from 2 April 2020 onwards. Amendment 1 aims to strengthen the policy intention, and we have discussed it with assessors to ensure, from a technical perspective, that it will do so.

I hope that members will agree with the rationale that I have set out and will agree to amendment 1.

Amendment 1 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2—Alteration of valuation roll

As I said in my opening remarks, we are committed to greater accountability and transparency in the non-domestic rates system. I recognise that that is of interest to ���˿��� and businesses across Scotland. Ahead of the 2026 revaluation, we will explore ways in which requirements can be expanded to allow for a larger share of properties to be on the valuation roll.

However, it was sensible in the first instance to focus on properties that are valued using the comparative method of valuation, because of the aforementioned commercial sensitivities that would come into play with the other methods of valuation.