Hansard

I begin by thanking everyone who has contributed to the debate on the bill, whether in yesterday’s proceedings or in any of the discussions that we have had over the past few months, from the stage 1 process to today’s stage 3 debate. I thank the national and trade organisations and the local groups and individual constituents who got in touch with us. I also thank the staff in the Scottish Government and our Parliament clerks, who helped members of the Local Government and Communities Committee and other members to ensure that our amendments were crafted in such a way as to deliver what we intended, and that we were able to have informed debates on what is a hugely important issue.

Finally, I thank the minister for her constructive approach to the debate and for being prepared to work with us—even when she did not agree with us, she was prepared to make sure that our amendments were crafted correctly.

The minister and Murdo Fraser have highlighted the changes that the bill will introduce. I will highlight a couple of important issues that were raised and dealt with at stage 2, but which have not yet been mentioned. I was very glad that colleagues supported my amendment to increase the amount of time that businesses have to provide notification of a change in circumstances from 21 to 42 days, reflecting the pressures and challenges that small businesses in particular face in meeting such a tight deadline. It was important to act on that, and the action that we took at stage 2 was followed up by Graham Simpson’s stage 3 amendment on the matter.

The second issue that I want to raise is that of phoenixing, which I put on the agenda through a probing amendment. Phoenixing occurs when companies still operate from a premises or address but reinvent themselves, perhaps through the use of shell companies, to evade their responsibility to pay tax for the local services that they use. The discussion that we had on that subject was very constructive and we secured a commitment from the Scottish Government to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation to create regulations on the issue. It was a difficult subject to address at stage 2 of a bill, but I have received a commitment that work will be done on the matter, which we hope will be finished by the end of the calendar year, and I very much welcome that.

Broadly, yesterday’s stage 3 proceedings were constructive, even though we disagree on many issues. It clarified the work that has gone into simplifying a very complex system of taxation and ensuring that there is a greater level of transparency, for which there is support from across the Parliament. I look forward to seeing how the changes that we have made to the bill—and, in particular, the work on the fiscal framework and the wider movement to financially empower and fund our local authorities—will be progressed. We should not forget that our local authorities are at the heart of the bill, because the money that is raised through non-domestic rates goes to them, and the provision of local services is crucial to all our communities, as anyone who listened to the previous debate will know.

One issue that was central to yesterday’s debate and that was picked up by me and Graham Simpson was the important role of Opposition parties in testing the boundaries of legislation through our principle discussions at stage 1 and the detailed discussions at stage 2. That was the case in relation to future proofing the bill, as my amendment on low-carbon energy that was agreed to yesterday does; to testing; to debates on key issues being opened up more broadly; and, critically, to how legislation will work in practice.

I will use the example of student accommodation, which was highlighted in the Barclay report but not included in the legislation. As I said yesterday, my stage 2 amendment was concerned with tackling the issue, which is particularly visible in our cities and which crosses ministerial portfolios, including those on finance, housing and education. The amendment was agreed to and included in the bill with cross-party support, and I undertook consultation with key stakeholders. Due to the size of the issue, its cross-cutting nature and the chance of unintended consequences hitting students who already face high rents, I was persuaded, having consulted stakeholders and with support from across the chamber, that including the provision in the bill was not the best way of tackling the issue. However, we were able to raise concerns about the debt that students—graduates, in particular—face.

Research that has been done by the National Union of Students and Unipol highlights that some university institutions provide good student accommodation and that such models are more cost effective, because there is provision for students with special needs, adaptable accommodation and quiet blocks are provided, students with families are supported and there are annual rent discussions. We need to learn from best practice. The mayor of London has introduced new planning requirements that ensure that universities provide affordable student housing. That issue has been raised in Edinburgh, particularly in the context of our new local plan.