Hansard

Amendments 94 and 95 seek quite simply to remove sections 66 and 67 from the bill, the result of which would be to continue the exclusion from the valuation roll of shootings and deer forests, for the time being. During our evidence taking, in particular at our meeting in Dumfries, it became increasingly obvious that the Government is, to be frank, unclear about too many aspects of this provision in the bill. I say with respect that the minister was unable to answer questions about how much the measure is likely to raise, how much it will cost to raise it, how much it will be required to raise—given the First Minister’s statement that proceeds would go towards the Scottish land fund—or even how the assessors would go about assigning a rateable value to every acre of non-urban land in Scotland, which I will come back to in a minute, if I may. The Government was not even able to answer the question why shootings and deer forests have been singled out while several other forms of non-agricultural land use will continue to be exempted. The result of our stage 1 deliberations was as damning a section of a stage 1 report as there is likely to be in this parliamentary session. The committee was not convinced by the Government’s arguments, and suggested strongly that a major rethink is required. Not the least of our concerns is the lack of any social, economic or environmental impact assessments. However, the aspect that concerns me almost most of all is that in answer to the question why the Government seeks to reintroduce the tax, the only answer has been that it is a question of fairness. I have to ask: exactly to whom does that fairness apply? I refer members to the letter to the committee from the minister and the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy that was sent on 19 January. Paragraph 72 of the letter refers to the ministers’ view that the 8,000 subjects that were on the valuation roll in 1995 are an indication of the scale of the exercise that is faced in this instance. However, in its evidence, the Scottish Assessors Association told us that the total of potential entries is likely to be between 52,000 and 55,000. Can the minister explain why she appears to be seeking to include only a small proportion of the subjects, and who is going to decide which subjects go on to the roll and which do not? Paragraph 73 of the letter states: “The Government notes the suggestion from some stakeholders that ‘shootings’ entries will be required in the valuation rolls in respect of every area of land. This however was not the case for the many years that shootings were rateable, and this Bill proposes no such change or anything to cause such a change.” Therefore, I have to ask whether that means that the Government is suggesting that many of those who should be on the valuation roll will end up not on it, because that is what happened last time. Prior to the exemption coming in, many people appealed their rates bill successfully, with the result that some people ended up carrying the tax burden while others carried on happily rates free, thanks to what were, in effect, Government-approved avoidance measures. Those two approaches do not seem to exemplify the principle of fairness that the Scottish Government says it seeks. Indeed, the only witness whom the committee met in our travels who is dependent on running a shooting business was an individual who rents the shooting from a Borders estate. That business employs seven people—more, during the shooting season—in a rural area, to say nothing of those who come to shoot and who stay in local hotels and add considerably to the local economy. That individual explained to us that although he makes a living from his business, the profit margins are not huge and the weather plays a major part in whether the business makes a profit. I suspect that he might have some difficulty this year. However, that business is situated only a few miles from the border. I find myself asking how it can possibly be fair to that person, his seven employees or the local hotels and shops that benefit from the business, to impose a burden of taxation that will not have to be borne by a similar business south of the border. Sporting rates will simply place that businessman at a massive competitive disadvantage to a similar business just a few miles away. That is not fair: it is the absolute opposite. It is often said that the exemption was introduced by a Tory Government as a sop to its benefactors. That is absolute nonsense. The exemption was brought in because the cost of collecting the rates was overtaking the amount that was being raised. Thus far, the Government has not been able to tell us how much it is likely to cost to implement the system and to raise the sporting rates that it seeks to impose. I remind members of our statement in our stage 1 report, referring to the ending of the exemption. We said: “based on the available information, the committee believes the case for change has not yet been made”. The committee asked for robust and comprehensive evidence-based analysis of the potential economic, social and—most important—environmental impacts of the proposal. I do not believe that the limited amount of information that has since been provided comes anywhere close to satisfying that request. I will conclude by saying a brief word about the possible environmental impact of the proposal. Shooting businesses are known to assist in the delivery of the Scottish biodiversity strategy. It is an interesting fact that shoots over farmland are proven to provide habitat that reverses the trend of the decline in farmland songbird numbers. It is worth noting that the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust supports my amendments on the grounds that, without the evidence-based assessment that the committee has asked for, this part of the bill poses an unqualified risk to the environment, is based on unclear policy drivers and displays a failure to acknowledge the conservation benefits that stem from game management. I have to say that I agree fully with that. Until the requests of the committee are fully complied with in respect of this part of the bill, I believe that it should be removed from it. That is the purpose of the amendments in my name. I move amendment 94.