The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 887, in the name of Gordon Lindhurst, on Barclay review recommendations and the sporting leisure sector. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I can ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request of speaking buttons now, and I call on Gordon Lindhurst to open the debate. Seven minutes, please, Mr Lindhurst. Deputy Presiding Officer, I am pleased to bring this debate to Parliament today on the important issue of the unimplemented aspects of the Barclay review. I would like to welcome all those who have come to hear the debate, including some councillors. The cabinet secretary, in spite of my persistent questioning, has not yet said whether the Government is committed to the unimplemented aspects or not. Eventually, he will of course have to nail his colours to the mast. However, this is an opportunity for all of us to reflect on this debate before that decision is taken. Having spoken to a variety of those organisations liable to be affected, some of them, at least, do not appear to have had opportunity to make their case to the Barclay review itself. The recommendations came as a surprise and, in some cases, a shock to them. Perhaps the Government did not see this coming either. Of the potential consequences is, however, now spreading even as the debate unfolds. Different areas of Scotland will have different stories to tell, including my own Lothian region. Let us begin by reminding ourselves that the Scottish Conservatives, as indeed the cabinet secretary is aware, supported a number of the recommendations of Barclay, which have since been adopted by the Government. The remainder still sits in the cabinet secretary's entry, including one to remove charitable rates relief from private schools. That and other aspects are equally important, but today our focus is on Barclay recommendations 24 and 27. I thank Gordon Lindhurst for taking the intervention just since the member has touched on the point. Can the member identify any of the revenue-raising recommendations that the Conservatives support? We will return to that at the appropriate point of time. Of course, as I have said, tonight we are not looking at other aspects of the Barclay review or the unimplemented parts of the report, but specifically items 24 and 27. We should focus on that rather than being deflected by questions about other matters tonight. Recommendation 24 says that charity relief should be reformed and restricted for a small number of recipients, and that arms-length external organisations or allios, such as Edinburgh Leisure or Excite in West Lothian, should lose their charitable relief. Recommendation 27 says that sports club relief should be reviewed to remove relief from unintended recipients with, quote, significant assets. At the heart of both of those recommendations lies a fundamental misunderstanding of what the organisations affected actually provide and how they are structured. Furthermore, Recommendation 24 describes local councils and the allios that they have established to deliver services on their behalf as being engaged in an exercise in tax avoidance.  Barclay claims that creation of these allios has led to unfair competition between the public and private sectors, but we cannot and should not equate allios with the private sector. Both have their place and part to play, of course, but allios is not for profit organisations to deliver services to many parts of the community that, if delivered on a stand-alone basis, would not be financially viable. Put it simply, it would not happen. It is therefore logical that allios such as Edinburgh Leisure and Excite are registered charities approved by the Scottish Charities Regulator, Oscar. That is because they provide public benefit. Edinburgh Leisure, for example, offers services such as the Healthy Active Minds project, which uses physical activity to help people to improve their mental wellbeing. There are many examples of what they and other charitable organisations provide for the public good, including delivery of affordable sport and leisure activities for disadvantaged families or disabled people. Indeed, many users are referred to these facilities by their own GPs. As one user of Edinburgh Leisure facilities said to me with enthusiasm, Edinburgh Leisure has changed my life. That is a real comment to illustrate a real issue. I turn to recommendation 27. No. It may be valid to raise the question as to whether sports club relief could be more focused. However, the recommendation is vague when it says that clubs with significant assets should lose sports relief. Who does that cover? I visited a community sports club in my region that has one significant asset, a sports centre that is paid for through funding and loans. The club provides discounted sport and leisure to disadvantaged neighbourhood. It has taken over responsibility of some infrastructure from the local authority. It makes available sports pitches to local state schools free of charge, but it runs in a fairly tight budget. If the recommendation is adopted, it may not survive and the pitches in the surrounding area could again become derelict and fall into disuse. That illustrates what might happen if those recommendations are taken forward, with the addition of millions of pounds of business rates bills on to such organisations. 92 per cent of trusts responding to a recent survey said that some leisure centres and swimming pools would close. Many would, at the very least, need to increase their charges and drop activities that are currently provided to local communities at little or no cost. I have spoken to those who would be affected, and those are at the very real consequences that they face. Ironically, £45 million of savings and recommendation 24 could be lost entirely. If rateable properties close, the non-domestic tax takes shrinks and cost rise in other areas such as the NHS, social work or for the police services. All of that would surely fly in the face of the Scottish Government's own national outcomes and programme for government priorities for getting and keeping more Scots active for life. With two-thirds of adults now overweight or obese, it is unlikely to be improvement if sports facilities closer become more expensive. My speech today merely scratches the surface of the specific issues that we are discussing tonight, not other issues such as the cabsec that we wanted to go into. There is much more to be said, but my time is up and I leave that to others. I simply conclude by saying that I sincerely hope that the cabinet secretary and Government will reflect carefully indeed on the potentially devastating consequences of taking on those particular recommendations. Thank you, Mr Lindhurst. I call Daniel Johnson to be followed by Murdo Fraser. I would like to give thanks to Gordon Lindhurst for bringing forward this debate, and I need to begin by declaring my interests. I am a director of a company with retail interests in the west end of Edinburgh. Indeed, that gives me a little bit of inside knowledge and experience of the rates system and what rates reviews do. It is fair to say that the rates regime is widely reviled by the business community, because it is inconsistent, opaque, arbitrary and irregular. It is a growing proportion of retail business cost-based. The Scottish Retail Consortium estimates that, over the past decade, it has increased by almost a half. Indeed, we welcomed the intention to look again at business rates. We welcomed the Barclay review, but I have to say that it frankly did not go far enough. In terms of that list that I just gave, I think that pretty much only the second last one it really fully addressed in any serious way at all. We also welcomed some of the details that we have already had. I welcomed the fact that nurseries are being lifted out of business rates. I will let the minister give me credit or not for that one. The fundamentals are still the same. Ratable values are still calculated by the assessor in an opaque way, carried out by different assessors in different areas. There is no audit of that. Frankly, I had a pretty shocking meeting with the local assessor here. When I asked who checks your calculation, who checks what you are doing, whether you are applying the information for the data that you collect accurately to calculate people's bills, they said, no one. We informally check it with other assessors. That is a system that is opaque. It is inconsistent and, frankly, leads to unfair results. Results that have put many businesses in my constituencies out of business because they have gone from having no rates to pay and because of the change in rateable value, suddenly having a huge monthly bill to pay such as businesses such as babies and bumps in my constituencies, which are well-loved cafes, and there are others that are facing hardship because of those changes. Tonight's debate is primarily about sports clubs and allios. Indeed, in my constituency, two such sports clubs have been potentially impacted by this possible change to their rates bills, Carleton Cricket Club and Inch Park Community Sports Club. I hope that Carleton Cricket Club barely needs an introduction. It is the home of Scottish Cricket, Cricket being the fastest-growing sport in Scotland, and yet they have the uncertainty of the potential increase in their rates bill. Inch Park Community Sports Club is a club that is founded out of community asset transfer, where well over 2,000 people are regularly taking part in sport, one that is committed to reaching out to marginalised groups, who are saying to me that they frankly cannot plan for their future because they do not know what their cost base is going to be. What we do know is that it is under review, that this is going to be looked at by the minister, but I have consistently asked for clarification as to what form their review is going to take, when we will have an answer, and I have twice had a response. The first one was saying, well, further consideration to this engagement will be given by the Government, and then pushing further that stakeholder engagement will take place. The bottom line of that is that we have no details, no timescale and no deadline. To the wider point about that, I think that the points that Gordon Lindhurst has are well made. I know very well how well used the facilities of Edinburgh leisure are. They provide access to sports facilities to a great number of people in our community, and we have to ask the question of this. This policy has the potential to undermine what is meant to be something of fundamental importance to the Government, the healthy well-being of our citizens, helping people to participate in sport and improving their health. Frankly, that just puts this at risk. End the uncertainty now, and clarify the sports club's positions. Let's not have them paying any more money than they have to. Thank you very much. I call Mordo Fraser, followed by John Mason. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I start by congratulating Gordon Lindhurst for securing this debate on what is an important subject. How we raise money for our public services is a conversation that this Parliament is finally having. There are a range of opinions from across the chamber, but we could all agree that taxation must be fair and proportionate. The recently released paradise papers have reignited the public debate around who does and does not pay their fair share. Just as thought-broken was last year's business rates revaluation, which Mr Johnson has just referred to. I heard from many local businesses in my area who felt unfairly targeted by some of the increases that that led to. From those discussions, it was clear that the current system was failing and fundamental reform was needed. The Barclay review was a comprehensive summary of the issues and made some sensible recommendations, as Gordon Lindhurst said. Of course, it was hamstrung from the very start by the requirement on the part of the finance secretary that any proposals had to be revenue neutral. However, one proposal that was not so sensible was the call to tax allios. If implemented, it would have a negative impact on local facilities across the country. What the Barclay review does is that it characterises allios as tax avoidance structure. According to the review, your local letter centre can be treated as equivalent to the likes of the high-profile celebrities that we hear about who have offshore accounts to avoid UK tax.  There is no equivalence between an offshore shell company and your local swimming pool, and the failure to see this on the part of the Scottish Government would be unforgivable. In my own electoral area, Perthincan Ross Council has live-active running the regions, sports and leisure facilities. That is no Mossack-Fonseca type operation. The trust was one of the longest-serving in the UK and was set up over 50 years ago to develop and provide sporting and leisure facilities in the area. The model is a simple one. Any profits from the gyms and swimming pools is channeled back into loss-making social programmes. Perthincan Ross' work is truly transformational. Despite the clear social benefits that are delivered by live-active, they would be targeted by the Barclay review proposals. They would be hit with an annual tax bill of £1 million if their relief was removed. According to a letter that was sent to the finance secretary by live-active chairman Mike Robinson, the impact of that would be devastating, with increased admission charges, reduced social programming and the potential closure of loss-making facilities. If the Scottish Government is serious about tackling the obesity time bomb, then hiking taxes on sports facilities is not the way to achieve it. What live-active does is that it offers free swimming lessons for vulnerable children, it teaches disabled kids to cycle, it provides walking groups for the elderly, it provides respite for carers, free sporting access for disadvantaged families and bonding classes for new parents. In what world does that sound like an organisation ripe for additional taxation? Despite the obvious social good that live-active provides, here we have a finance secretary still considering taxing those projects out of existence. We have a very similar issue in another part of my region in Stirling, with the Allial Stirling Leisure. In their case, they estimate the additional cost to them as being £600,000 per annum. Today, Andrew Bain, the chief executive, told me that, I quote, the local consequences could be catastrophic. Murdoff Fraser is just concluding. Well, now he knows he is. Terribly sorry to my good friend, but I cannot give way to him on this occasion. Let me just say, including Deputy Presiding Officer, the SNP's swim tax, which is what it is, must be avoided at all costs. I would call upon the cabinet secretary to come and visit live-active in Perth before he thinks about saddling them with a £1 million annual tax bill. If Scotland is to reduce obesity, if we are going to encourage activity and salvage any kind of legacy from Andy Murray and the Commonwealth Games, then the SNP needs to axe this tax. Thank you. I call Jordan Mason. Can we follow by Maurice Golden, Mr Mason, please? Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I'm very happy to speak in this debate and thank Gordon Lindhurst for bringing it. I think that it's worth remembering the background to the Barclay review, because there was a widespread acceptance that the NDR non-domestic rate system could be improved, especially if that could encourage economic growth. However, there was certainly not an acceptance that there should be an overall reduction in NDR, reducing business rates as a whole would almost inevitably mean a less skilled workforce and a less healthy workforce, because we would have to make cuts elsewhere, and that would damage the economy. There's a whole range of issues raised by this motion, but I would like to particularly concentrate on three. First of all, what is a charity? My understanding of a traditional charity was an organisation like Oxfam, Cancer Research or Hospice, which would be largely funded by donations, largely run by volunteers and would have the aim of helping vulnerable folk or even animals here or overseas. An allio, arms-length external organisation like Glasgow Life, would not be a traditional charity, so I think that there is a wider issue as to whether we need a review of what is and what is not a charity. SCVO, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, suggests that allowing local government bodies to be treated as charities can put pressure on real charities. Therefore, rates relief for charities would not have applied. What is effectively an arm of Glasgow City Council, it seems to me that the letter of the law has been adhered to, but we have drifted away from the spirit of the law and at some point we need to re-examine what a charity is. My second point would be around the question of public money recirculating. Glasgow Life was set up as an allio while I was a councillor, and I refused to take a seat on the board. It was set up to save on rates, and I was opposed to it, firstly, because it was inevitably less democratic. Previously, Glasgow City Council had a culture and sport committee, the public could approach their councillors on issues, and the councillors were answerable on that, but Glasgow Life effectively stopped that. Allios are not accountable. I do have extra time. If the member shared his concerns about democracy with the set up of Police Scotland and centralising the fire service. I think that that is a bit away from the debate. The rates that Glasgow was proposing to make and did make was effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul, saving the public person Glasgow, but costing the public person Scotland. There is no new actual money in the public sector as a result of these devices, and the reverse is still the case. If a council does start having to pay rates, the money stays in the public purse. It is a zero sum game. I know that the SCVO used the term tax avoidance, and I would not go as far as saying that it was immoral, but it does put councils who have refused to use an allio out of principle at a disadvantage. Thirdly, my third point would be that income has to equal expenditure. The Conservatives told us that they wanted business to pay less rates, but if one organisation pays less rates, another has to pay more. Are the Conservatives now saying that allios should not pay, but they are happy for other businesses to pay more? Of course, alternatively expenditure somewhere else could be cut. Would the Conservatives want to cut health or education? Would they want to reduce the number of nurses or school teachers? Then, of course, we could raise income tax to compensate. Maybe the Conservatives are wanting that, but no, the Conservatives want to cut income tax by £140 million. So all in all, I think that there is a lack of reality here. To say that we should reduce income tax and reduce business rates and increase expenditure in various areas, that is neither good accountancy nor is it good economics. Overall, I am pleased that the Scottish Government has agreed to give further consideration to the whole question, and, as I understand it, it is still considering. Of course, we want as many people as possible active in sport and other leisure facilities, and we want publicly and volunteer-operated community facilities as much as possible. But I believe that we must create a fairer playing field for all organisations and not allow artificial devices like allios to cloud the picture. Thank you. I call Maurice Golden to be followed by Andy Wightman. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As my colleagues have mentioned, there is much to welcome in the Barclay review, but also proposals that need to be challenged. A particularly troubling aspect is the lack of common sense in the proposed changes to charitable relief that would see crucial community services burdened with increased business rates. We all know the challenges that we face, encouraging active lifestyles, improving mental health and reducing social isolation. Take sport, for example, can help with so many of those issues. The vast majority of community sports clubs do not own their own facilities, relying on local leisure trusts. Given that local authorities account for around 90 per cent of sport investment, leisure trusts are a major part of Scotland's sporting landscape. The proposed changes would risk that and, in turn, risk local clubs. Where is the sense in that? There is none. It is not just sport. In the west of Scotland, Paisley is competing for the title of UK city of culture. Yet those proposals risk an estimated 1.6 million to local finances. That is a real concern to the community at this critical time for Paisley. The fabric of our local communities is at risk. We need a comprehensive overhaul that supports businesses, charities and clubs, who grow our economy, teach our children and improve our wellbeing. Let's stop the swim tax before it harms our communities. Thank you, Mr Golden. I call Andy Wightman to follow by Tavish Scott. I thank Gordon Lindhurst for bringing this important debate. Before turning to the substance of his motion, I want to put it in some context. I have long been a critic of the non-domestic rating scheme. For too long, we have had ad hoc etsy bitsy changes. Some of those changes were hardwired by vested interests some years ago, including the agricultural relief. I am more recent various reliefs, including charitable and sports clubs, have been introduced. I particularly welcome this debate because it is an opportunity to subject the non-domestic rating system to some scrutiny, which it generally does not, because changes come through secondary legislation under the local government finance act of 1982. I was particularly exercised by the fact that the second biggest tax raised in this place, the non-domestic rates, which I think yielded last year at £2.8 billion, is facilitated by a statutory instrument that I attempted to annul last year, just to get some debate. In September 23, the then finance secretary, Derek Mackay—he was not the finance secretary, he was the local government minister, I think, at the time—did a consultation on non-domestic rates. In his introduction, he said, that the Scottish Government is committed to using the period until the next revaluation in 2017 to conduct a thorough and comprehensive review of the whole business rate system, all reforms to be in place by next revaluation in 2017, delivering, he said, a fairer, simpler and more efficient business rate system. That review never took place. Instead, we had the Barclay review. The Barclay review asked one question in its consultation. It asked, how would you redesign the business rate system to better support business and incentivise investment? That is a legitimate question to ask, but it is not a comprehensive and thorough review of the non-domestic rating system. It did not ask any questions on who sets the rates, whether the local government would be given back control of this important part of the tax base, or many other wider aspects of the system. Barclay was also told that their recommendations should be revenue-neutral. That meant, in practice, that any proposals that were brought forward to reduce liabilities in any sector had to be balanced by other measures that would make up for the lost yield. In that context, it is a very narrowly drawn remit, and it needs to balance revenue. It is in that context that the proposed subject of Gordon Lindhurst's motion should be considered. Those reviews—this particular one to Charitable Relief for Sports Facilities—have not been generated by a considered and diligent review, as anticipated in 2013, or even as a consequence of a considered review of charitable relief. It is a measure that has been considered very, very cursorily in order to make up a deficit in proposals that had to be revenue-neutral. Given that context, I have read views of sport of Scotland and Edinburgh leisure very carefully. As someone who has long been critical of the non-domestic rating system and who wants a thorough review, I do not believe that that is the right context to even be discussing this issue. The potential impact of the proposal is potentially extremely complex and should be considered extremely carefully. It is certainly not as a quick measure to raise some revenue in a budget that is just a month off. I have long argued that charitable relief, as with small business bonus scheme, is too blunt a relief and does not discriminate effectively between a wide range of charities and small businesses. I hope that we get to the thorough and comprehensive review promised in 2013, but in conclusion I am not persuaded that this recommendation by Barclay is well founded and I would have very serious reservations voting for any statutory instrument introduced to reforms noted in Gordon Lindhurst's motion. Thank you. I call Tavish Scott to be followed by Liam Kerr, Mr Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to thank Gordon Lindhurst for allowing Parliament to debate rates relief for sports facilities in the run-up to the Scottish budget. I would also like to thank Derek Mackay as the Cabinet Secretary for Taking These Debates.  I think that it is quite important that Mr Mackay is here. I must confess that I disagreed with Murdoff Fraser to some extent. I did not find rates reevaluation quite as exciting as the Paradise papers, but, nevertheless, Murdoff Fraser may have been just needed to get out a bit more. This week, Presiding Officer, I met the Shetland Recreational Trust General Manager, James Johnson, in Lerwick on Monday. As I was waiting to go into his office in one of the spaces within the Clickham Inn leisure centre, an exercise class for older people was taking place. James explained to me that that was done in conjunction with the national health service. It was about fitness, mental wellbeing, companionship and, yes, indeed, fun as well. The SRT managed leisure centres and swimming pools in Lerwick, and, across the outlying areas of Shetland, it provided a range of facilities, classes and services for the general public for pupils and schools and, indeed, for specific groups with particular health needs. The SRT, with Shetland Immunity Trust and Shetland Arts, worked across health, wellbeing, sport, art, culture, the creative industries, heritage and tourism. It delivered on the Scottish Government's approach to mental health, to obesity, to healthy living and so many more policy areas. The Barclay review proposes removing these organisations' rates relief. Barclay and Government ministers say that such facilities compete with the private sector. That is simply not the case in Shetland. There are no such private sector alternatives. That argument does not apply to Shetland nor, I suspect, to many parts of Ireland and rural Scotland. Neither are those bodies allios, so say Audit Scotland—not me, but Audit Scotland—as they do not receive core grant monies, nor are they controlled by the local authority. Yet, the financial sword of Damocles now hangs over them and the services that they provide. In a letter to the finance secretary, those Shetland organisations made clear what will happen if rates relief is removed, a reduction in activities on Shetland's outer islands, charges up by at least 50 per cent. Some facilities and leisure centres may indeed have to close. Two specific points on policy objectives that the Government makes very much clear, the wellbeing work in care homes for elderly people could have to be cancelled. If rates relief is abolished in 2018, according to the Shetland Recreational Trust, that would mean a reduction in the interventions for young people, that, ironically, in 2018 being the year of young people. Ministers, I hope, need to be properly briefed on the islands bill if they let this happen, because ministers cannot see on one hand we want to island-proof policy areas and the financial consequences of policy areas and yet let this happen. I would ask the finance secretary to consider making sure that what he does in his budget in relation to this and indeed other areas is properly island-proof. The Government also cannot simply pass this all over to local government. It cannot, in that sense, pass the financial buck. The SIC leader is here tomorrow to meet Mr Mackay on inter-island ferries. There is a £7 million black hole there. We do not want that hole to be made worse, so I hope that the cabinet secretary will not solve his budget difficulties by simply transferring this cost to local government right across the country. I would be grateful—indeed, I am sure that Parliament would be grateful for an assurance from him tonight that that will not happen. Across Shetland, if the Government cuts racially that funds £1.4 million of expenditure and that will have to be cut, that will cancel huge swathes of charitable work. The Shetland Recreational Trust, the Shetland Immunity Trust and Shetland Arts are vital components of Shetland's offering to its people, to visitors, to tourists and those whom we want to attract to live in the islands. I do not want those damaged. That is the decision that the finance secretary faces. I urge him to take the correct decision, recognise the wider policy commitments across sport, the arts, health and leave the rates relief in place. Otherwise, I fear that the knock-on effects on mental health and wellbeing in particular will be far-reaching and, in some cases, irreversible. Thank you. I call Liam Kerr to be followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We welcome many of the proposals in the Barclay review, but, as my colleagues have outlined, we are concerned about the implications for local services if all of the recommendations are enacted. I want to highlight the particular plight of a specific organisation that demonstrates the damaging impact that those plans could have. I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Rossie Young People's Trust, which is just outside Montrose. It is an organisation that provides vulnerable young people with secure care and accommodation. The current system allows Rossie to reinvest the money that they save in charitable relief back into their organisation to improve their services and help young people to reintegrate to mainstream schooling and the community. However, if implemented fully, the Barclay recommendations will restrict charitable relief and force Rossie to remove front-line funding and fork out for the rates instead. We can surely all agree that the purpose of charging business rates is to raise money for strong public services. Why, then, would this Government take money from organisations like Rossie that already provide a vital service to communities and to our children? That is not right, but neither is it logical. I think that Tavish Scott made important points just there. We should be fully supporting charities like Rossie who are helping to reduce the cost to other public services, which will no doubt struggle to pick up the consequences if charitable institutions are forced to reduce their offering. John Mason talks of Robin Peter to pay Paul. That would be it in action, destroying good operations like Rossie and leaving the public sector to pick up the pieces. A complete overhaul of the business rate system is long overdue, but the Government is choosing a sticking plaster approach, and the injury will be to organisations like Rossie that are integral to local communities and vulnerable young people. Just like the proposals to introduce a swim tax on local sports clubs, any attempt to remove charitable relief would harm valued health and social services across Scotland, and the SNP should comprehensively and conclusively rule it out. I think that he has just concluded. I call Neil Findlay to be followed by Bruce Crawford. Mr Findlay, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I have to say that if swim tax is the best, the Tories can come up with us and get a bit desperate. I have to say that the Barclay review proposals would have very serious consequences for our communities, particularly in Edinburgh and West Lothian in my region. I have never been a fan of the allio model, but we are where we are. The reality is that what has been proposed could be disastrous. The local government year-on-year has been a target for cuts from this Government. Ten years of cuts, with 327 million more this year. In an attempt to shore up statutory services and adhere to the demands of Government policy regarding ring ffencing, non-statutory services are taking a disproportionately big hit. Sport and leisure is in the front line of the cuts, and major reductions in service have already been made, 7.5 per cent in the last three years, £42 million. The Barclay review proposals, if unchanged, will make this situation much worse, with the potential of another £46 million at stake. Such a cut would be a disaster for sports centres, museums, swimming pools, community halls and the rest. From the briefings that we have got, 92 per cent of trusts said that they would be forced to close facilities. Some trusts question whether they would be able to exist any more. I have never been a fan of that model, but I understand why they were set up, largely to try to protect services that are provided in our communities. However, I have to say that, like all other financial sleight of hand, such as PFI, NPD and TIF, I think that they are just another financial bit of trickery. Ultimately, there is only one pot of cash, and it is through taxation that you get that cash. No matter how you manipulate that cash, ultimately it comes back to one pot. I am sure that we will see the repercussions of NPD and TIF in the future as well. We will be back debating them, I am sure. As convener of the health and sport committee, I am very concerned about anything that is a barrier to people participating in sport and physical activity. Reduced hours, closed facilities, staff being made redundant, increased charges, removal of subsidy—all of those will reduce participation. As is always the case, it will be the poorest, the low-paid, the disabled and the most needy who will suffer the greatest disadvantage as we see facilities close and charges rise. All of that is directly contrary to the stated policy position of the Government and the rhetoric that follows it. As the 10 years of council cuts, what they do is they remind me of the scene from the life of Brian, where the Cabinet Secretary, despite chopping off every limb of local government that local government has, claiming, do not worry, that it is just a scratch or it is worse than a flesh wound. Local government is barely twitching. I have to say that it has been systematically destroyed year on year by this Government, and this approach would be a near fatal blow to some of the services that people rely on in our communities. I apologise for the clock not being switched on. You did get your four minutes, just in case somebody is wondering if people were having excessive time. I call Bruce Crawford to be followed by Brian Whittle. I thank you for taking me in this debate, because I know that I didn't press my button at the beginning, but I was having listened to some of the contributions that I felt and I just had to make some comments, and they will be short. First of all, let me say that I am a former chairman of one of those allios, Perthyn Cynrhods Resur in Recreation Facilities, which is now morphed into live active. I am also acutely aware of the services in the constituency that I now represent with in Stirling and the particular issues that will affect the organisations there in my own patch. I am delighted that Gordon Lindhurst has raised the issue tonight. I think that it is a chance to explore some of the issues behind it, and I do not underestimate the seriousness of the issues that are being raised. However, some of it is being raised with a level of invective and, frankly, undermines the case that is being put forward. I have never seen Murdo Fraser, for instance, as the champion of the speedos. I hope that I never live to see him in a pair. However, when you start categorising it as some sort of swim tax, it really devalues the argument, because people at Andy Wightman put forward a reasoned argument that had a sound basis and thought through his arguments. Instead of just coming forward with invective, it really does not help the case if we are trying to win over whatever the result of this might be. Dean Lockhart, I would be delighted to take that question. Just in the spirit of consensus, would he join me in meeting with Andrew Bain, chief executive of active sterling, whom I spoke to today and expressed his real concerns about the consequences of the change if it goes ahead? I would be delighted if he would join me. Bruce Crawford. Had I not already spoken to Andy Bain some time ago about those issues, then I might have been happy to have joined in with Dean Lockhart, but I have been on this case for a little while as far as the organisation and sterling is concerned. However, if you want to set up that meeting, Dean, and you want me along, I will still partake in it, because that is the sort of guy I am. However, there is a bit of an anomaly in all of this, because if you think of the public services that are currently paying business rates, hospitals, day centres, care homes, in some occasions, places that are sports centres that are not in allios, they will all be paying business rates, so there is also a fair degree of hypocrisy being put forward by some elements of the argument. That is not me making an argument for bringing in business rates for those organisations. I just think that when we examine this and we look at it, we are going to do it on a rational basis. I think that the way that Andy Whiteman laid out his argument was a rational process, some of the other stuff has been pretty irrational. Brian Whittle, in the open debate, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am grateful to be able to make a small contribution to this debate. I thank my colleague Gordon Lindhurst for bringing this topic to the chamber. What concerns me in the Barclay review lies within the potential unintended consequences of retracting the business rate exemptions for council allios, especially for voluntary sports clubbing. That is particularly relevant in the context of the recently launched diet and obesity consultation, as well as the mental health strategy. I recognise the Government's need to consider tax-raising and spending across all portfolios, but I would question whether removing the business rate exemptions for those kinds of organisations would, in fact, raise any extra revenue. The reality is that it would have the potential to force organisations and councils to rationalise services that they offer and or raise the cost of participation. We are trying to increase participation and reach out to those in the more challenging circumstances. By removing those, that might move those initiatives further away from those who need it most. Sam H state that the key to good mental health, for example, is inclusivity and activity. If we are going to tackle obesity and type 2 diabetes in musculoskeletal conditions and cardiovascular disease and many more, we have to recognise that those are positively impacted when taking part in any kind of activity. Any reduction in those services will inevitably pass on the cost to a health service that is already under significant strain. Briefly, in conclusion, in consideration of the Scottish budget, I would ask the Scottish Government to reflect on the potential and intended consequences of withdrawing business rate exemptions from alleles and volatility sports costs. In the Bartlett review specifically, I think that that is what is missing from it but should certainly not be absent from any irresponsible Government considerations. I have found the debate to be helpful and informative, because I am absolutely still engaging in the subject and the parliamentary debate is now part of that. I suppose that that is to be welcomed after I welcome the debate that has been presented. For the most part, it has been constructive, I think, in good nature, despite Murdo Fraser's desire to get a headline for the second time on swim tax and Neil Findlay mixing his Monty Python references. However, what is really important to us is that we do exactly, as Brian Whittle suggested, which is to consider this issue in the round in terms of our health and wellbeing and sport objectives and culture as well, but we also consider it in the context of budgetary decisions and the reality that we have to balance the books. Some members have deliberately conflated Barclay recommendations with Government opinion. Government opinion is what I present, Barclay report is what the panel has published. I think that it has largely been well received. There were some recommendations that I immediately rejected, for example, around agricultural land, building the infrastructure around that but not to tax. It was notable that the Government rejected just two recommendations. One was to get everything on to the role, so at least we know what its value is and what its potential cost of exemptions are. The other was to ignore a recommendation to introduce non-domestic rates for industrial premises and food processing that just happen to be on agricultural land when food processing and manufacturing facilities that are in industrial estates will pay. Does it not accept that that would be a better area to look at in terms of raising some additional revenue than the proposal to exempt alloys from their charitable status? Cabinet Secretary? No, it was incredibly difficult, bureaucratic, hard to define and essentially it would create a new bureaucracy with no intention to tax and would not raise the kind of values that would be required to contribute to the other areas, so it was not worth progressing. However, what is said at the time is that I thought that some elements of Barclay such as those that we have debated this evening require deeper and further thought and consideration so that I had the ability to engage with those affected. That is what me and my officials have been doing. If there was a concern about lack of awareness beforehand, I think that those that could be affected are certainly aware now because there is that engagement in the process, the submissions, the letters and the meetings that have been undertaken. That will inform ultimately the Government's decision. I was criticised at the same time for not having nailed my colours to the mast but equally asked to engage, consult and consider. I think that in engaging, consulting and considering, we are doing the right thing. I propose to, as I said I would, say more in the budget on 14 December and have an implementation plan by the end of the calendar year. You will see the proximity to that. There will be certainty but it is right that we take time to get the recommendation right, having taken actions around the poundage, small business bonus, caps for hospitality and other areas that are affected by the revaluation, which is determined by the assessors. In terms of Daniel Johnstone's point about the alternative to the current system, Dean Lockhart mentioned that as well. I have not been presented with a better alternative system in terms of non-domestic rates than the one that we have right now by the Barclay recommendations. We are fairly well received in terms of the refinements that can be made. A major challenge in that is how the assessors conduct their assessments than the methodology. That is a matter that will be part of the implementation plan. Frankly, I have never known the assessors to be so engaged with ministers and it is partly because they have had a shot across the bow in terms of their future operation and some of the recommendations in the Barclay report in that regard. Can I make a point about tax? Yes, I will. Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport has rejected a couple of the recommendations. Can he give us any idea of what the criteria or the outcomes that caused him to reject them in order that we can bring forward ideas as to why he should reject, for example, those measures? I have not already partly addressed that with Andy Wightman's comment. It was bureaucratic. We were putting properties on the register ultimately not to tax them because there was not a call to tax agricultural properties, apart from those commercial operations on agricultural land. It was not in the interests of either finance or that sector to progress with those. With those recommendations, we absolutely have to understand the consequences and that is what the Government is engaged in. Some members have complained about the revenue-neutral nature of the remit of Barclay, but it is a fact of life when your finance secretary or when you are in Government, you have to balance the books. You may well be hamstrung by that requirement to balance the books, but it is absolutely essential. Of course, there are choices in that. I thought that Tavish Scott made very important points around the island perspective. I was minister who took forward empowering our island communities agenda as local government minister and then through minister for transport in the island. I am very familiar with those issues and take them seriously. Any local authority can create any relief scheme that they believe is appropriate to local circumstance in terms of addressing local need, but we absolutely want to capture the issues right across Scotland. The point that I wanted to make about tax avoidance is partly true. I was a council leader. The briefings that council leaders get and conveners of finance get in terms of in-house council operations moving to trust scenarios, the briefing largely goes that you could avoid paying non-domestic rates to do that. That is not necessarily a bad thing in that those savings can be reinvested in front-line services. That may be tax avoidance by definition. It may not be a bad thing, but it is a briefing around tax avoidance and is a determining factor in creating those kind of structures that Neil Findlay and others have said is maybe not what they would seek and how we structure public services might be quite different from an individual that hides their income to avoid paying tax, the debate between tax and avoidance in Evasion. Fundamentally, the debate is helpful in that it helps to inform Government thinking as we fully consider the issues before us in terms of non-domestic rates, the reliefs and the support that we give in terms of what is a valued part of public sector infrastructure. For that reason, I welcome the contribution that members have made and I will bear that in mind as I present the budget. However, members must also appreciate that we must balance the books and take the right decisions to ensure that there is fairness and consistency within the rates regime. Equally, we must draw a line somewhere in terms of the appropriate reliefs. I appreciate the engagement that I have had from across the chamber on a very important subject.


the feeling that somebody is watching you while you sleep, Janet is about to experience the very same thing, but in a much different capacity with another tales from hell's power. Janet, you should have known somebody was watching you, chances are it will happen to you, but another tales from hell's power. Stay cool.


Hi Sue, do you want to do a quick sound check? Can you hear me? Just barely. Again, I'm working the mics in here. Okay. Better. That's better. Thank you. Is it better? Yeah. Sure. It's nothing on your end. We're doing it here in the chamber. Thank you. Okay. Great. Thanks. Stephanie is the meeting all, it looked like the agenda stated that it was all by Zoom. That's correct. Okay. Morning, Eddie. Martin, John. Hey, Mayor, how are you? I heard you might have a conflict. Glad you're here. I did, but I had to resolve that. I had to cancel a meeting with five people to make this meeting this morning. So I'm sure you very much appreciate it. The community does. Just send it to Jack. I do see Council Member Fleming in the attendees list. There we go. And Council Member Tibbet should be signing on momentarily. And we have the Vice Mayor too. She accepted the invitation. Oh yeah, she just got promoted. All right. Looks like we have a mostly full council at the moment. Let's go ahead and call the roll and start our special meeting. Okay. Good morning, everyone. Council Member Tibbet. Yeah. Council Member Schwedhelm. Council Member Sawyer. Here. Council Member Fleming. Here. Council Member Alvarez. Present. Vice Mayor Rogers. Present. Mayor Rogers. Here. Let the record show that all council members are present with the exception of Council Member Schwedhelm. Great. We're going to start with item 2.1. Mr. City Manager, do you want to introduce? Yes. The resolution declaring a local disaster from the recent rains. And the unfortunate reality is Council has seen many of these in the past.  I don't know if it's Sue or if it's Jason Nutt of what the council is being asked. I'm happy to take on or Jason is on board. And in fact, Jason was the Acting Director of Emergency Services at the time and the one that issued the proclamation of existence of a local emergency relating to the rains and the flash flooding that was the result of the atmospheric river event that took place over the weekend. He issued under his authority under the city code. He issued the proclamation of existence of local emergency. That declaration survives for a period of seven days unless extended by ratification by the city council. So we're here today to ask that the city council ratify that proclamation of local emergency and that proclamation would then remain in effect uninterrupted for another 60 days. You would review it again in 60 days or earlier if the conditions of emergency are resolved. And Assistant City Manager Nutt, would you like to weigh in as well? Thank you, City Attorney Gallagher. Yes, we were, we have been made aware that the governor may be issuing a statewide declaration. The combination of the two may provide opportunities for both the city as a local government but also individuals to be able to receive assistance if assistance is necessary based on the extent of the damage that was caused by the recent storm events. So by ratifying this proclamation, it does put us in a position to be able to take advantage of those opportunities at the state level if we feel the damage is extensive enough to warrant application. All right, councilor, are there any questions? All right, let's open it up and see if there's any public comment on this item. We'll see no hands popping up, so I'll bring it back. Jason just wanted to say how grateful I am to you and to the team. I know everybody was working really hard, upstaffed through the weekend that obviously when we started to see the water flow, everybody kicked it into high gear. So I know police, fire, water, transportation, public works, so many in the EOC really were give it up the entire weekend to make sure that the community stayed safe. So I just want to say thank you for that and that we're all very grateful for it. Thank you for that, yeah. The team did a fantastic job all the way around protecting the citizens. Yeah. All right, Madam Clerk, would you please call the vote? I think we need a motion and a second for this. Okay, I see Jack is the motion. Do we have a second? Second. The motion is to approve, right Jack? That's right. All right. And was that council member Sawyer who seconded? It was the vice mayor. The vice mayor? Let me change mine. Okay, council member Tibbets. Council member Tibbets. Thank you. Council member Sawyer. Aye. Council member Fleming. Yes. Council member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. The motion passes with six ayes with council member Schwedhelm absent. Okay, move on to item 3.1. 3.1 is a closed session item, so we'll take public comment on it. If you have an interest in providing public comment on this item, go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on Zoom. All right, I'm not seeing any hands pop up. So council, we have a separate Zoom link for the closed session. We'll reconvene on the open session link after we're done to report out to the public. But for now, let's go ahead and recess into closed session and join that other Zoom link. All right, Stephanie and Dina, it looks like we're ready to come back. Okay, she's promoting. Council member Fleming, I have been trying to promote you to panelists. So if you see that prompt, please accept. Let's also promote Sue. And then let's go ahead and call the roll and establish a quorum. Okay, there we go. We'll begin roll call. Council member Tibbet. Council member Sawyer. Here. Council member Fleming. Here. Council member Alvarez. Present. Vice Mayor Rogers. Present. Mayor Rogers. Here. Council member Tibbet, have you joined us? Okay, let the record show that all council members are present with the exception of council member Schwedhelm and council member Tibbetts. All right, so do you mind giving us a quick report out from our closed session? Sure, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council met in closed session on item 3.1 concerning negotiations on the real property at 950 South Wright Road, Santa Rosa. Council gave direction to the real property negotiator and no final action was taken. Thank you. All right, with that, we'll go ahead and adjourn. Thanks, everybody.