Hansard

Without a business and regulatory impact assessment, the Government is listening without having properly considered the evidence. That is the key issue.

The Government amendment is an act of self-congratulation; if there were a prize for that, the minister would surely be in the top three. However, this is a serious issue. It is simply not acceptable for members to be asked to support the bill without proper scrutiny, given the major concerns that have been submitted to the Parliament.

Evidence from England has to be considered. The number of unoccupied properties has risen as the economic downturn has gripped. Properties have been demolished rather than let. That means that when the economy picks up, those properties will not be available. It has been suggested that companies are becoming insolvent rather than being stuck with higher business rates.

In Wales, as has been mentioned, our Labour colleagues have gone for a completely different approach. They have commissioned a detailed independent expert report. It acknowledges that although business rates are a major source of taxation, the changes to the current business rates regime would not be a panacea for wider economic challenges. Crucially, it highlights the complexity of the property sector. We are not getting that sense of understanding from the minister.

There is also the impact on the public sector. For all the minister’s supposed assurances to the committee, he cannot be definitive about the impact on the public sector either.

The figure of £18 million is illusory. We know from the evidence to the Finance Committee and the Local Government and Regeneration Committee that the business community is deeply worried about the proposals. Yesterday’s comments by the Scottish Chambers of Commerce testify to that. The Federation of Small Businesses has called for an investigation into whether property rates relief acts as a block to or a driver of economic activity. There are too many unanswered questions.

The reassurance that we have heard again this morning—that nobody need worry because the Scottish Government is consulting on the detail of the rates—is arrogant and worrying. That approach completely prejudges the outcome of parliamentary scrutiny. We have not yet had the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s report or the stage 1 debate on the bill. There is no transparency in the process, which is run by ministers. The SNP has a working majority, but it should still treat the Parliament with respect. There should be full consultation on the proposals, followed by parliamentary scrutiny, not the other way round. When we deal with the regulations, the SNP’s overall majority will mean that they are simply nodded through, so there will be no opportunity to change the proposals.

Good government demands effective parliamentary scrutiny. The Finance Committee considered that there should be a business and regulatory impact assessment, and we agree. The SNP Government is incurring costs for businesses and local councils without proper consideration.

Our amendment is constructive. The Crofting Reform etc Bill was delayed to enable the Labour-led Scottish Government to consider major objections to part of it. That Government took its time and brought that bill back. More recently, the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill was delayed for proper consideration.

We are in hard times and there are tough decisions to be made. There is too much at stake for us not to get it right.

I move amendment S4M-03397.2, to leave out from “, and therefore calls” to end and insert:

“; welcomes efforts to regenerate local economies and encourage occupancy in town centres but is concerned that the Scottish Government’s plans to reduce empty property relief through the Local Government Finance (Unoccupied Properties etc.) (Scotland) Bill may not achieve its stated aim, may have a detrimental effect on business and the economy and may, in fact, cost the public sector considerable sums of money; calls on the Scottish Government to conduct a business and regulatory impact assessment (BRIA) immediately and to provide the Parliament with detailed information on how many commercial properties will be brought back into use as a result of these proposals; also calls on the Scottish Government to delay further consideration of the bill until the Parliament can consider the findings of the BRIA and other evidence, and urges the Scottish Government to consider other measures to incentivise local government to invest in economic development, such as allowing councils to keep a proportion of business rates raised through increased economic activity.”