Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 03 February 2016

03 Feb 2016 · S4 · Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

Item of business

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

McLeod, Aileen SNP South Scotland Watch on SPTV

That is a good point, convener. I do not have that level of detail to hand this morning, but I am happy to supply such information to the committee in writing. I thank members for their contributions, including on amendment 126 from Michael Russell, and on the other amendments in the group. I thank Michael Russell for setting out the rationale behind his amendment. Amendment 126 would give the assessors discretion to set the rateable value of shootings in deer forests lower than the net annual value to reflect good management in the public interest. I understand the intention and reasons behind the amendment. However, such discretion would be problematic because it would require the assessor to interpret whether good management existed and, subject to that, to apply a deduction at their own discretion, which could range from zero to the full net annual value; they could, in effect, set the rateable value at zero. Such a judgment, and the corresponding revenue effects, might sit beyond the long-standing role of the assessor in valuing property. More tangible criteria would normally be provided for in such de-rating under valuation legislation. 10:30 I note the discretion that the assessors would have under the unamended provision. For example, before the current exemption was put in place in 1995 assessors discounted valuations to take account of increased culling activity due to Government policies. Although the assessors cannot give a guarantee at this time of what their future methodology would be, they have confirmed that valuation would take account of all material factors. I reassure Mr Russell that the Government acknowledges and recognises that we need to get there through a combination of regulation and incentives, and my officials and I have given the matter of a relief much consideration. If it appears that the business rates are unduly interfering with that goal, we will consider whether it is necessary to provide relief through the normal mechanism of rating reliefs or an alternative support measure ahead of the rating implementation in April 2017. The matter certainly will be borne in mind when we are working with the assessors—I give that assurance to Mr Russell and other members of the committee. The tax base for shootings and deer forests will be a more permanent reference point in primary legislation, and it should be valued under the same general provision as other non-domestic properties, with the same due discretion for the assessors to reflect relevant factors. As I have said, part 6 is a valuation measure, not a rating measure, and is a necessary first step to value the tax base before we consider rates reliefs and revenues. Only once that step is complete can an informed assessment be made of a new relief. I also give Mr Russell and the committee that assurance. I therefore ask Mr Russell not to move amendment 126 and I give a commitment to engage the sector once we have seen the emerging valuations, which will probably be later this year, and ahead of making rating decisions in 2017. I say to Graeme Dey that the First Minister said in her programme for Government speech in Parliament on 26 November 2014 that ending the rates exemption would help the Government to increase the Scottish land fund. Therefore, we will welcome and consider any expenditure proposals that are linked to the non-domestic rates income from shootings and deer forests.

Search Hansard contributions

Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 03 February 2016

In the same item of business