Hansard

I thank Alex Fergusson for explaining his amendments 94 and 95, which would together remove the part 6 provision to return shootings and deer forests to the valuation roll. I will reiterate the purpose of part 6. It is to enable revenue raising to fund public services, and to reflect fairness by returning shootings and deer forests to the same rating regime that applies to the majority of other non-domestic properties. To briefly recall the background to the current exemption dating from 1995, I remind the committee that the rationale that was given by UK ministers when the exemption was brought in was that it was designed to align Scotland’s arrangements with those in England. However, the exemption did not do that, and alignment was achieved only when a subsequent exemption was legislated for in England, taking effect in 1997. Others have suggested that the reason for the 1995 exemption was that the administrative cost exceeded the revenue, but there is no evidence to support that. We have engaged local government and the assessors on the administrative costs, and consider them to be incremental and sustainable. I recognise the issues with scrutinising a valuation provision such as this, as it is not a rating provision and does not itself determine rates revenue. For non-domestic rates, the first step involves valuing the tax base. However, given the absence of entries in the valuation roll since 1995, there is no available data source to identify shootings and quantify rents. As with the 220,000 properties that are already on the valuation roll, that work is for the assessors. In that light, the Government has committed, subject to agreement to the bill, to return to the committee to provide information on the emerging valuations once they are available, and to invite the committee to express any views before rating decisions are made, ahead of implementation next year. At this stage, 2017 rates revenue cannot be predicted accurately for any sector, as we know neither the valuations, the poundage nor the relief eligibility for respective properties. That is the case across all sectors ahead of a revaluation year. We have also said that, if we are re-elected, we will continue the small business bonus scheme for the duration of the next session of Parliament. I anticipate many shootings being eligible for considerable rates relief under that scheme, which already benefits around 100,000 rateable properties. The liability should be considered in that context. Having considered the extensive evidence on the proposal—including our public consultation, which drew more than 1,000 responses, with 71 per cent agreement among those who gave a view—we consider the measure to be sustainable, as it was for over 100 years before the exemption. We recognise the potential conflict with our wider deer management policies. However, taxes can conflict with objectives in any sector, but that does not necessarily mean that we should not tax. Our intention is that there will be a fair and sustainable rating liability, and our view is that any conflicts will be manageable. The assessors will work with the sector to ensure that there is an appropriate valuation methodology, and I welcome the preliminary discussions that are already under way. As with all rating valuations, ratepayers can appeal their valuations in independent hearings. We have presented the available evidence to the committee and we have, although we have had calls for more information and analysis, received no suggestions about what the alternative data sources or types of analysis might be. The Government has not heard any compelling evidence why shootings and deer forests should remain a special case and be entirely excluded from valuation and rating, and accordingly does not agree that the current exemption should continue. We intend to continue to work closely with stakeholders during scrutiny of the bill and ahead of and during implementation in order to secure fair and workable arrangements. I therefore ask Alex Fergusson to seek to withdraw amendment 94 and not to move amendment 95. Mr Fergusson referred to comments that were made by the chair of the Scottish Assessors Association, Alasdair McTaggart, in relation to whether there should be shootings entries in the valuation rolls covering every area of land. As we have said, in our analysis, there were around 8,000 shootings on the roll in 1994. By comparison, there were around 55,000 farms and other landholdings including estates and woodlands. 10:15 However, when Alasdair MacTaggart was giving evidence to the committee, he said: “hypothetically, every shooting right should be in the valuation roll. However, over the 100 years leading up to 1995, a degree of pragmatism came in and the valuable shootings—the shootings for which the right was exercised and for which there was some value in that right—were the ones that were entered in the valuation roll. Assessors will now have to re-establish the position in the next two to three years.”—Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 30 September 2015; c 42. That may have caused some confusion. I thank Alex Fergusson again for explaining his amendment 99. Amendment 99 is consequential on amendments 94 and 95, which I have asked Alex Fergusson not to press. Therefore, I ask Alex Fergusson also not to press amendment 99. The Government’s amendments 122 to 125 will amend the wording of section 67 to remove any unintended scope for misinterpretation. Amendment 122 will simply remove the term “yearly value”. Although it was used right up to 1995, it has now been questioned by some stakeholders, given that the prescribed form in existing subordinate legislation—the Valuation Roll and Valuation Notice (Scotland) Order 1989—is for entries in the valuation roll to include net annual value and rateable value. Given that existing provision, amendment 122 will remove any possible doubt as to what is required. Amendment 123 will insert the term “relating to” to make the link with the valuation area, so that shootings are entered in a valuation roll only in so far as they relate to that valuation area. Amendment 124 will insert the term “in so far as situated in” to make the link with the valuation area, so that deer forests are entered in a valuation roll only in so far as they are situated in that valuation area. Amendment 125 will remove the original links to the valuation area, “in so far as exercisable or, as the case may be, situated in”, for shootings and deer forests respectively, which are instead addressed by amendments 123 and 124. The combined purpose of the three amendments 123, 124 and 125 is to remove the term “exercisable” and correspondingly to avoid any doubt as to its interpretation. The intention of the original wording was simply to make the link to the valuation area, not to invite a distinction to be made as to whether shootings are exercisable or not. The amended wording removes any possible doubt in that respect.