Ross Greer
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“In the short term, will the Government introduce measures such as the Scottish Greens’ proposed Amazon tax—a higher rate of NDR for large online retailers—to help even the playing field for small businesses and local high streets?”
“I welcome the fact that vape shops will now be paying full rates. However, that shows how poorly designed the small business bonus scheme was in the first place. The Government spends more than £200 million a year on untargeted reliefs, despite its own review finding no economic benefit to the scheme.”
“Scotland faces a wave of applications for hyperscale data centres. If all the applications that are currently in the pipeline were approved, they would consume up to 6,000MW of power, which is more than one and a half times our entire national power use at peak time and is obviously completely impossible.”
“The Government’s policy is to support what it refers to as “green” data centres, but that position was decided before ChatGPT existed, before Elon Musk launched Grok and before any of those hyperscale proposals came forward. So, what is the Scottish Government’s definition of a “green” data centre?”
“I am glad that the Labour Party has secured a debate on restoring public trust in Scottish politics, because, quite clearly, the public have very little trust in our political institutions. However, that did not begin and does not end with Peter Murrell’s crimes against the SNP.”
“If we want to talk about the damage that has been done to our politics in a UK context, we could mention Labour Together, an institution with strong links to the Prime Minister that was caught spying on journalists and did not declare substantial amounts of money that it had received in donations.”
The complete record
Every one of 553 lines we hold for Ross Greer, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the Mossmorran support grants will go only to businesses that offer those job interviews to the highly skilled workers who have just spent a Christmas wondering how they will provide for their families in 2026? Shona Robison: I welcome the productive discussions that the Scottish Greens had with me on the budget. The budget is better for the inclusion of Opposition asks, but the Opposition has to make those asks first. We are pleased to support the workforce at Mossmorran and to enable the development of important economic opportunities in the area. In principle, I am supportive of Ross Greer’s suggestion, because it is important that the affected workers are the first in line for the growth and business opportunities that will arise from our investment.”
“The devil is always in the detail, but I am glad that the Scottish Government has accepted Green proposals to fund the likes of childcare expansion with tax rises on the super-rich, including a mansion tax on million-pound homes and a charge on the 12,000 private jet flights that are taken in Scotland every year. I have repeatedly called on the First Minister to deliver more support for the workers who face redundancy at Mossmorran, and I welcome that that proposal has been accepted. However, the Scottish Greens and trade unions have called on that funding to be conditional on guaranteed job interviews for the workers who are being abandoned by Exxon.”
“It is absolutely clear that no work was done. Eighteen months on from the Scottish Government saying that it would come up with a plan, and a month after ExxonMobil announced the site’s closure, its workers are going into Christmas knowing that they will lose their jobs in the new year. Mossmorran’s workers need jobs that they can go into, and the community needs a proper legacy from the ExxonMobil site. Is the First Minister ready to tell them how he will fulfil the promise that his Government made?”
“Presiding Officer, I, too, wish all colleagues a merry Christmas. I join the First Minister and Anas Sarwar in thanking our emergency services and all other key workers who will keep the country going over the festive period. A month ago, ExxonMobil announced that it was closing its Mossmorran site in Fife. More than 400 workers face imminent redundancy. I have repeatedly asked the First Minister for the just transition plan for Mossmorran that, 18 months ago, his Government committed to producing. Freedom of information requests submitted by the Scottish Greens have returned only a single document from before last month’s announcement, which was the text of a minister’s speech given in response to a debate organised by Fife’s Green MSP Mark Ruskell. That was before the commitment to the transition plan was even made.”
“We need to make it clear that outdoor education is about so much more than that. We now have a fantastic resource in learning for sustainability in Scotland, where we can push the on-going experience of outdoor education not only in our natural environment but in the built environment, although there is a particular benefit in learning about our natural environment in the natural environment. Such is the nature of these curtailed debates that I will finish here, not because I am closing but because, in a few minutes, I will get up again to deliver my closing speech. I will deliver concluding remarks at that point and so will end abruptly now. 17:18”
“The benefits of outdoor education are undisputed, certainly across the Parliament and even among those who might be sceptical about the specific proposals in the bill. We all recognise that the physical and mental health benefits are undisputed, as is the ability to develop skills such as team working and the transformational impact that outdoor learning can have on the social development of individual young people, and in particular on their confidence. I said at stage 1 that we cannot see outdoor education as just being that one-off week of residential education, often in primary 7. I know that that is certainly not the bill’s intention, but we should also probably recognise that that week has a particular place in the popular imagination of people across the country.”
“I therefore reflect on the fact that some practical and sensible amendments were made to the bill at stage 2 to recognise potentially exceptional circumstances, whereby it might well be that the obligation to provide the opportunity is not possible to fulfil in some circumstances. Schools and local authorities should not be held liable for circumstances that are outwith their control. The Greens will, of course, support the bill at stage 3. We have supported it throughout the process because it fulfils our manifesto commitments to guarantee every pupil at least a week of residential outdoor experience, to remove the financial barriers to that and to expand outdoor play and learning provision across the board.”
“In starting my contribution at stage 1, I mentioned my experience of the classic primary 7 residential trip, and I bring it up now because some of the amendments that we have made to the bill are relevant to that experience. My class went to Castle Toward in Dunoon, which, for those of my generation, was famous for being the setting for the CBBC show “Raven”. We were all incredibly excited to be using the set of that show when we were there for that trip. However, we almost did not get to go because, the day before we were due to go, back in 2006, we had one of the heaviest snowstorms that Scotland had experienced for years and possibly decades, and the trip was almost cancelled.”
“In this place, it is not always the case that, when we hear a member making a contribution, we believe without a shadow of a doubt that they believe what they are saying. Sometimes members are saying what they have been told to say. Every time that I have profoundly disagreed with Liz Smith, I know that she is coming at the issue from a place of absolute conviction and I can understand why she believes what she does. We need far more of that quality of debate and far more of that kind of principled position in all parties in this place. I believe that the Conservative Party and the Parliament as a whole will be poorer next session as a result of Liz Smith no longer being here.”
“I follow Martin Whitfield in paying tribute to Liz Smith. At the risk of potentially giving members of my party a bit of buyer’s remorse in relation to their recent leadership vote, I can say without hesitation that I will miss her contributions in the Parliament when she takes her well-earned retirement. Liz Smith and I have served on the same committees for almost all of the decade that I have been a member of the Parliament. We served on the Education and Skills Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We agreed on far more than people outside of this building and maybe even some of our own colleagues might have expected. That is probably more true in the education portfolio than finance, but it was a bit of both. More than that, though, what I really respect about Liz Smith is where we disagree.”
“I hope that, at tomorrow’s meeting of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, we will have the opportunity to put such questions to the cabinet secretary and Professor Jay. This afternoon, though, is about politics. I have no time for that, which is why the Greens—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Thank you, members. We will hear Mr Greer. Ross Greer: The Greens will be voting against the motion. 14:53”
“One of the simplest things that we can do to protect children from sexual abuse is to provide age-appropriate and stage-appropriate education on what that is and, critically, who they can go to if they or someone they know is being abused. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Ross Greer: However, the current guidance on RSHP education is so out of date that it does not even have a section on the importance of consent. The updated draft guidance, which represents a huge improvement, could have been completed and published years ago. We could have used this afternoon to push the Government to at least roll out that guidance early in the new year. However, we are not doing any of that now.”
“Through the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, the Parliament agreed that independent legal advice should be provided to victims of sexual offences, but that is irrelevant if there are simply not enough solicitors taking on such cases. We know that, in some parts of the country, none are doing so. That is not an easy problem to solve, but, unresolved, it shuts down access to justice for far too many people, including survivors of grooming gangs and other forms of child sexual abuse. We could have talked about the delayed update to guidance for schools on relationships, sexual health and parenthood education.”
“Almost four years ago, the Scottish Government committed to reviewing the legislation underpinning the care system, with the aim of making it more understandable, less fragmented and more effective, but that has still not happened, despite the total fragmentation of support being one of the contributing factors in grooming gangs being able to target and abuse children without anyone in a position of authority stopping them. We could have challenged the justice secretary on the huge problems in the legal aid system and the effect that those are having on survivors seeking justice. Reform of legal aid was promised in this parliamentary session, but it has not yet been delivered. We hear that there might be something before the election, but there are only 10 sitting weeks left.”
“We know that a disproportionate number of victims of this scandal are care-experienced children and young people. We have a bill in front of us that has unanimous support, but people’s frustration with it is almost equally unanimous. The bill is intended to fulfil the Promise, but it does not do so. We are already talking about legislation being required in the next parliamentary session to meet that commitment. The Promise Scotland has said that the bill does not fulfil the vision of the independent care review.”
“I respect the fact that survivors are not a homogeneous group who speak with one voice—I certainly do not claim to speak for them now—but the pain of having been let down and failed by those who should have protected them, as children, is near universal. We could have used this afternoon to put questions to the Scottish Government about what additional action it is now taking to deliver justice for those who were failed and to prevent the same thing from happening to more children in the future. It is hard to think of anything more important for a Government to do. We could have talked about the need to improve the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, which is due to be passed before the election.”
“I am profoundly sad that we have got to this point. The Scottish Government can and should have handled this issue far better, but I doubt that that would have dissuaded those who have used it for political advantage. In recent weeks, we have seen how detached the debate has become from the issue that is at the heart of this: protecting children from sexual abuse and securing justice for victims and survivors. I do not pretend to understand the trauma that survivors have gone through, and I doubt that anyone who has not gone through it can truly understand that pain. However, in this job, I have spent a lot of time with survivors, particularly during the establishment of Redress Scotland. I appreciate how angry many of them are, and that anger is justified.”
“Does the First Minister agree with the Scottish Greens that we could use a Scottish mansion tax to fund local services, such as education, housing and social care, to deliver the support that our communities so desperately need?”
“Across the country, families just cannot get the services that they need locally. Every day in schools, children with additional support needs are being failed by a near total lack of specialist staff. More than 10,000 children will spend this Christmas in temporary accommodation, and far too many elderly and disabled people and their families just cannot get the care packages that meet their needs. At the other end of the spectrum, the wealthiest people in Scotland just keep getting wealthier. For all the mistakes that she made in her budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s mansion tax plans for England will raise hundreds of millions of pounds. However, that cash will be grabbed by the Treasury, rather than going to local councils.”
“Can the First Minister please just admit that there is no Scottish Government plan to support the Mossmorran workers and apologise for the fact that his Government did not deliver on the commitment that it made?”
“Last week, I asked the First Minister for the just transition plan for Mossmorran workers that his Government promised that it would write 18 months ago. He twice avoided answering that question. Since then, we have had three summits in as many days, which have involved the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments and Fife Council. At none of those has the Scottish Government provided the plan that it committed to write. The Scottish Greens spent years working with the trade unions representing Mossmorran workers and the wider community to produce plans of our own, because we all knew that this day was coming. Hundreds of workers face losing their jobs within weeks, and their Government has no plan to help them.”
“In April 2024, the Government agreed, and it promised that that work would commence within months. That was 18 months ago. On behalf of the workers and their families, who thought that the Scottish Government had their back— [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Mr Greer. Ross Greer: —can I ask the First Minister where that transition plan is?”
“Like the First Minister and colleagues, I start by congratulating Steve Clarke and the national team. I cannot remember 1998—[Interruption.]—so, like many other people across Scotland, I am looking forward for the first time to the experience of having our national team compete in a world cup. On Tuesday, workers at ExxonMobil’s Mossmorran site were locked out of their workplace and told that they would lose their jobs. Two hundred staff and 250 contractors are facing unemployment. Ludicrously, ExxonMobil has suggested that it could support workers to get a job at its other site, which is 500 miles away in Southampton. We all knew that this was coming. For years, the Scottish Greens called on the Government to develop a just transition plan for Mossmorran.”
“He has quietly ditched the Scottish Government’s energy strategy, the first draft of which opposed new oil and gas exploration. The science is clear: if we are to have any hope of changing course and preventing total climate breakdown, there can be no new oil and gas fields. Does the First Minister agree with Nicola Sturgeon that it would be the greatest act of environmental vandalism in our lifetime? Will he oppose the Rosebank oilfield?”
“The fossil fuel giant Equinor has submitted a new application to drill for more oil in the North Sea, but—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us be courteous. Ross Greer: This time, it has had to admit that the Rosebank oilfield will be 50 times more polluting than it first claimed. There will be 250 million tonnes of carbon emissions, which will accelerate climate breakdown and destroy our hopes of keeping our planet safe. The First Minister’s predecessors were crystal clear in their opposition to Rosebank. Nicola Sturgeon agreed that it would be “the greatest act of environmental vandalism in” her “lifetime.” Humza Yousaf said that approving the field was the “wrong decision”. However, so far, John Swinney has avoided taking a position.”
“Sunday is a time to remember and to mourn every victim of war—we should always remember that civilians bear a particularly heavy price—but it is also a time for us to honour those who fought and died for us, particularly in the fight against fascism. It is a day to remember and to give thanks, but also to recommit to preventing a repeat of the darkest periods of our history. As has just been mentioned, the politics of hate and division are on the rise again today. We honour the sacrifice of those who were forced to defeat that by force of arms in our past, but we also need to work to ensure that no generation is ever forced to do so again.”
“On that basis, I will not press amendments 314 and 315 when we come to them, but I will press amendment 311 to a vote because I believe that it has merit. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 311 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“Mr Mountain and I have had this debate a number of times before and I point out to him that it favours the Government far more than the Opposition when members’ opportunity to lodge amendments is shut down at stage 3. I invite him to reflect on that. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to work with me on removing the outrageous and unjustifiable relief for, for example, shooting estates that are owned by billionaires living in tax havens. However, I say with respect that I have heard the Government make that commitment in principle a number of times before but have seen no action at all being taken as a result. I would like to take up the cabinet secretary’s offer to me to work with her on that ahead of the budget in the coming weeks.”
“It would have been respectful of him to turn up to the committee at stage 1 to raise them and I would be happy if all members did that at committee. Ross Greer: Mr Mountain knows fine well that that is not how Parliament works. I turned up at stage 2, which is the appropriate stage for members who are not on a committee but who want to bring forward proposals regarding a bill. I also point out to Mr Mountain that, when my party was in government and the initial Government consultation on what became this bill took place, we ensured that matters of taxation were included in that consultation. An evidence base was gathered and Parliament had the opportunity to debate it. All of that happened before this stage of the bill and I have brought back a select number of amendments because I believe that they merit further debate.”
“What a committee does at stage 1 is a matter for that committee. Edward Mountain: Will Mr Greer take an intervention? Ross Greer: I am happy to take Mr Mountain’s intervention, but I point out that he has lodged dozens and dozens of amendments to the bill at stage 3, so he is on thin ice when it comes to his point about being disrespectful to the Parliament. Edward Mountain: I take exception to Mr Greer’s final comment. I sat through the whole of stage 1 and in fact ensured that I was present and able to discuss the bill with the Government at stage 2 having just been released from hospital. I made sure that I was there for all those events. Not once during stage 1 did Mr Greer come to the committee to raise these points.”
“Although we can set rates and bands in the budget—as I mentioned, the proposed reform that I would like to see to the small business bonus scheme could be made through the budget—we cannot change tax legislation or the fundamentals of our tax system through the budget. We can make those changes through bills such as the one that we are debating today, which is why such amendments have been debated at stages 2 and 3. I want to address Edward Mountain’s point about such amendments being disrespectful to the Parliament. It was not up to me whether the committee took evidence on these issues at stage 1; it was up to the committee that Edward Mountain convenes. However, the Government consulted on them—an evidence base was sought and evidence was gathered—and they were debated at stage 2.”
“The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government would be happy to consider the issue more closely in the upcoming budget discussions, with a view to making necessary changes to relief eligibility, provided that we can avoid unintended consequences. Therefore, I ask members not to support the amendments in the group. The Presiding Officer: I call Ross Greer to wind up the debate and to press or withdraw amendment 311. Ross Greer: I thank Rhoda Grant for the points that she made. However, in part, they get to the issue that we have had with quite a few bills in the Parliament. We say that tax provisions sit not in X, Y or Z bill but in the budget bill.”
“I am sympathetic to some of Ross Greer’s arguments on non-domestic rates relief in relation to shootings. However, I cannot support amendment 315 due to the unintended consequences that it could have on individuals, family farms, crofts, community interest groups, charities and other groups, as well as on nature restoration and deer management. Those issues could not be addressed without further primary legislation. However, I confirm that the Scottish Government is content to work with Ross Greer to explore how our reliefs, particularly small business bonus scheme relief, can be better targeted at ratepayers of shootings who should rightly be eligible for them, because I agree with him that shooting estates that are owned by offshore tax havens or by billionaires are not the intended target of such relief.”
“Mairi Gougeon: As we have heard from Ross Greer, the amendments in this group cover a range of issues relating to tax. Such complex changes need to be properly considered and appraised prior to consideration in a bill. Changes to devolved tax legislation should be made in tax- specific legislation, supported by—in the case of land and buildings transaction tax—engagement with Revenue Scotland and the Scottish Fiscal Commission. Tax policy changes are typically announced in the budget, in line with our framework for tax principles and tax strategy. Without proper consideration of such changes, there is the risk of significant unintended consequences. For example, amendment 314 could have a significant unintended consequence on crofts that are currently not rateable under the agricultural exemption from rating.”
“My problem is that, in my mind, the matters that are raised in Mr Greer’s amendments 311 and 314 to 316 were not properly debated at stage 1. As someone who sat on the committee that considered the bill, I think that it would have been much more helpful if those matters had been fully debated at the outset, but we did not have the benefit of doing that. I have always held the view that the lodging of amendments at stages 2 and 3 on matters that have not been considered by the committee brings into question how the committee system works. For those reasons alone, I will reject Mr Greer’s amendments, because they have not been given the scrutiny that they should have been given at the committee stage, which is disrespectful to the Parliament.”
“18:45 Rhoda Grant: I lodged similar amendments at stage 2, although I recognise that taxation provisions should not sit within this bill; such provisions rightly sit within budget bills. That said, it is important that we explore and build consensus on all aspects of taxation and that we recognise that people hold their wealth in many different ways. We know that people use land to offset taxation as well as to invest. If land is to work in the public interest, we should expect the Government to consider how such wealth is captured through taxation, especially to avoid any perverse incentives that inflate the value of land. Edward Mountain: The one thing on which I agree with Mr Greer is that I have no issue with openness about land ownership. I am very happy for people to hold their hands up and explain what land they hold.”
“Amendment 316 seeks to finish the work that started in recent years on how vacant land and empty property are treated in the rates system. It would deliver a Barclay review recommendation that would allow councils to not only end relief but impose a surcharge for vacant and derelict land. We should not subsidise absentee landlords that sit on dilapidated buildings and blight our communities by land banking brownfield sites, which supermarkets are particularly guilty of doing in town centres. We should push for them to put that land and property to use or to sell it to someone else who will. It would be for councils to decide how to do that, but it would be an important behaviour change tool to incentivise putting unproductive, vacant and blighted land back on to the market and into productive use. I move amendment 311.”
“The SNP says that it agrees that that needs to be stopped, but we have not seen any progress on it for years. Recognising that our valuation roll is imperfect and that many parcels of land that are enrolled for shootings include socially useful land, such as crofts, amendment 314 seeks to end that anomaly by mandating that crofts are enrolled separately. Amendment 315 would then prohibit shootings from receiving non-domestic rates relief. The amendment is a blunt tool because my ideal outcome is for the Government to specifically exclude shooting estates from the small business bonus scheme, as it has already done for other land types, such as car parks and payday lenders. If the Government can confirm that it will finally commit to ending the ridiculous billionaire loophole, I will not need to move those amendments.”
“The Government will say that it is doing a review, and I look forward to the LBTT bill in the next parliamentary session delivering on that review, not repeating Barclay, when recommendations were not acted on. We need to see LBTT as a tool to deliver land reform. We can make it more progressive, not only through transaction value but in relation to socially harmful transactions, through which billionaires buy up vast estates. Amendments 314 and 315 are intended to stop the ridiculous situation in which billionaires, barons and tax avoiders get tax breaks from the Scottish Government for their shooting estates. We basically subsidise aristocrats and the super-rich to shoot animals for fun through a tax scheme that is supposed to be for small businesses.”
“At stage 2, I lodged amendments to deliver some of the Land Commission and Barclay recommendations, such as putting in place a proper valuation roll so that we can all see who owns Scotland’s land and what it is worth and by ending some of the more ridiculous tax break schemes for large landowners. The Government rejected those amendments and kicked them into the long grass. It is no wonder that no one is really happy with the bill, because opportunity after opportunity has been wasted. To turn to the specifics of what I propose, amendment 311 would impose a land and buildings transaction tax surcharge on the purchase of large landholdings.”
“It has been almost 1,400 days since that advice was given, and it has been more than eight years since the Barclay review into non-domestic rates made specific and important recommendations on how tax can advance the land reform agenda. The Government simultaneously says that tax change is necessary for land reform and that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill cannot have any tax changes in it. It has created mutually exclusive conditions for progress. We are waiting for advice that already exists and has sat gathering dust on the shelf for the best part of a decade.”
“I will rattle through the amendments as quickly as I can. I want to start with the bill’s policy memorandum, which says: “In relation to taxation, the Scottish Government is giving careful consideration to these complex matters and intends to explore them more fully as part of its commitment to producing a longer-term tax strategy.” However, on page 34 of “Scotland’s Tax Strategy: Building on our Tax Principles”, under the heading “Tax as a lever to encourage positive behavioural change”, it says: “We are also taking forward work with the Scottish Land Commission to consider the role of taxation and fiscal interventions in supporting land reform and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from land.” In January 2022, the Scottish Land Commission advised ministers on land reform and taxation and made five recommendations.”
“They have rejected proposals to end tax breaks for big landowners, they have rejected proposals to end the King’s personal tax exemptions and they have rejected proposals to introduce a mansion tax. It is as though they are hoping that the public will not notice that, when push comes to shove, theirs is a Government that does not want to risk upsetting the rich and powerful. Can the First Minister name one proposal that he will bring forward before the election to tax wealth in Scotland?”
“Scotland is a monumentally unequal country. There are a small number of people who are sitting on more wealth than they could spend in 1,000 lifetimes. About 420 people own almost half of our private land, but, this morning, thousands of children will have gone to school hungry because of poverty. The Scottish Government’s own recent report showed that the top 2 per cent have the same amount of wealth as more than half the population combined. This month, Scottish National Party members instructed their leadership to begin discussions with the United Kingdom Government about wealth taxes, but Scottish Government ministers have repeatedly rejected opportunities to tax wealth using the powers that they already have.”
“Later this month, the Scottish Government will ask MSPs to vote for the new Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which will not break up big estates or redistribute land from billionaires to the people of Scotland. I ask the First Minister, with less Scottish land in the hands of the people now than in 2007, is his Government just scared of those billionaires?”
“The Scottish Greens and I, like colleagues from across the chamber, send our thoughts, prayers, love and solidarity to the victims of the attack on Heaton Park synagogue and to the whole Jewish community. It will cast a long shadow over Yom Kippur worship this evening. Scotland is a country of 5 million people, but fewer than 500 people and companies own half of this country’s land. Many of them do not even live here. They are a motley crew including aristocrats, billionaires and minor royals from across the world. In some cases, we do not even know who they are—three quarters of a million acres are owned from tax havens such as the Cayman Islands. More Scottish land is owned by corporations and the super rich now than it was when the First Minister’s party took office in 2007.”
“Amendments 248 and 249, in my name, seek to merge the two provisions of the bill that relate to the housing revenue account of local authorities into a single section. Graham Simpson: Amendment 247 covers an issue that I raised at stage 2. I did so because it has been raised with me by students themselves. The amendment seeks to exempt students from the requirement to start paying council tax in the period between finishing a course and graduation. The cabinet secretary alluded to drafting errors—it is the first that I have heard of them—but I will accept what she has said. However, the wider issue, which I have discussed with her, is that there could be quite a gap between someone finishing a course and graduating, and some people might not get round to graduating. For those reasons, I will not move amendment 247.”
“19:00 Amendment 359, in the name of Ross Greer, would require the review of the classification of properties under section 51E to include within its scope the number of days a year for which a residential property has to be available for let and the manner in which it is to be let. The valuation of all non-domestic property, including the classification of properties on the roll, is a matter for Scottish assessors, as I have said. On a technical point, amendment 359 refers to days, but the unit of measurement for such requirements is nights, and that has been in effect since 1 April 2024. More generally, I point back to amendments 250 to 254, in my name, which provide greater clarity and a better scope. I therefore encourage members to support amendments 250 to 254.”
“We are considering whether further changes are needed, but the current wording of section 51E is very broad, and a wide range of property types would, potentially, be captured within its scope. For instance, hotels, guest houses, caravans and timeshares are all potentially suitable for providing housing. Amendments 250 to 254, in my name, will deliver the same intention but provide greater clarity in doing so, namely that the scope of the review is the process surrounding the classification of self-catering holiday accommodation for the purposes of non-domestic rates. They will also make clear that the review must include the manner in which any such determination will be communicated.”
“I am not prepared to duplicate that work unnecessarily. Equally, the effect of amendment 377 is that revenues that are generated could be put into general housing funds, as opposed to what the visitor levy was intended for—namely, tourism. I therefore cannot support amendment 377. I turn to amendments 250 to 254. During stage 2, it was explained that the intention of section 51E was to require a review of the processes around the classification of self-catering holiday accommodation in particular. The evaluation of all non-domestic property, including the classification of properties on the roll, is a matter for the independent Scottish assessors. In any given year, assessors determine whether a property meets the requirements for classification as self- catering holiday accommodation, which is liable for non-domestic rates.”