COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE Wednesday 4 October 2006 Session 2 £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2006. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Licensing Division, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by Astron. CONTENTS Wednesday 4 October 2006 Col. ITEM IN PRIVATE ............................................................................................................................................. 4065 PLANNING ETC (SCOTLAND) BILL: STAGE 2 ..................................................................................................... 4066 SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION ........................................................................................................................... 4098 Race Relations Act 1976 (Statutory Duties) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2006 (SSI 2006/467) ....................................................................................................................................... 4098 COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE 26th Meeting 2006, Session 2 CONVENER *Karen Whitefield (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) DEPUTY CONVENER *Euan Robson (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD) COMMITTEE MEMBERS *Scott Barrie (Dunfermline West) (Lab) *Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) *Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP) *Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green) *John Home Robertson (East Lothian) (Lab) Tricia Marwick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) *Dave Petrie (Highlands and Islands (Con) COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTES Chris Ballance (South of Scotland) (Green) Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con) Christine May (Central Fife) (Lab) Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Ms Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP) *attended THE FOLLOWING ALSO ATTENDED: Johann Lamont (Deputy Minister for Communities) Christine May (Central Fife) (Lab) David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) CLERK TO THE COMMITTEE Steve Farrell SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK Katy Orr ASSISTANT CLERK Catherine Fergusson LOCATION Committee Room 4 4065 4 OCTOBER 2006 4066 Scottish Parliament Planning etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2 Communities Committee Wednesday 4 October 2006 09:32 The Convener: The committee will consider [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 09:31] amendments to the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill at stage 2 on this, our sixth day of consideration. Item in Private Members should have in front of them copies of the bill, the marshalled list and the groupings. The Convener (Karen Whitefield): I open the I welcome to the committee Johann Lamont, the 26th meeting of the Communities Committee in Deputy Minister for Communities. She is 2006. I remind all members and visitors to the accompanied by a number of Scottish Executive committee that mobile phones and BlackBerry officials: Tim Barraclough, Nikola Plunkett, devices should be switched off. I have received Norman MacLeod, Gregor Clark, Colin Gilchrist apologies from Tricia Marwick, who I understand is and Sally Thomas. Depending on the part of the ill. I welcome David McLetchie, who has an bill that we are considering, the officials may need interest in the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. to change seats at certain points. Agenda item 4 is on the committee’s approach Before we commence our consideration of the to the budget process for 2007-08. Members are bill, it might be helpful to point out a few things. asked to consider whether to discuss item 4 in First, in order to speed things along, if a member private. Does anyone wish to comment on that does not wish to move an amendment, he or she proposal? should simply say, “Not moved.” Any other member may move the amendment at that point, Members: No. but I will not specifically invite other members to The Convener: Item 4 will be taken in private. do so. If no other member moves the amendment, I will simply go on to the next amendment on the marshalled list. Secondly, if a member wishes to withdraw an amendment, I will put the question, “Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn?” If any member objects, I will immediately put the question on the amendment. Finally, if I am required to use my casting vote, I intend to vote for the status quo, which—on this occasion—is the bill as it stands. Section 36—BID proposals The Convener: Amendment 222, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 226 to 231 and 235 to 240. The Deputy Minister for Communities (Johann Lamont): I intend to speak to amendments 226, 222 and 229, which are the main amendments in the group. Amendments 227, 228, 230, 231 and 235 to 240 are largely consequential. Following the initial consultation process in 2003 and the recommendations of the first business improvement districts working group, we received clear representations from business representatives, individual businesses and local authorities that BIDs should involve property owners and businesses with long-term commitments to areas. Property owners or people with longer leases are likely to be substantial 4067 4 OCTOBER 2006 4068 beneficiaries of any successful BID project as a Where both ratepayers and other owners or result of improved rental values and reductions in tenants are involved in the BID, it is appropriate vacancy rates, for example. that the rateable value of the property accounted in the vote be distributed between the two Amendment 226 will allow BID proposers the interests. It is intended that the allocation of option of engaging eligible tenants or owners in rateable value between them will be clearly the local BID ballot, in addition to ratepayers who outlined in the BID proposal and will be an are included in the bill. It will allow the local BID estimate of the likely beneficial impact of the BID proposer to restrict the ballot to ratepayers for the project. Amendment 229 will allow flexibility in so relevant properties only, but will require the BID far as the regulations under the bill can provide for proposer to state in the proposal who will that allocation of the rateable value vote in the BID participate in the ballot—ratepayers only or proposal. Alternatively, ministers can make the ratepayers and eligible tenants and owners. We allocation in the regulations. Of course, scope will recognise that identifying owners or people with remain for the BID proposer to restrict the BID longer leases is not always straightforward, but we project to ratepayers only. think that we have found a workable solution to allow their involvement in BIDs, which the As I said, amendments 227, 228, 230, 231 and business community requested. Where the BID 235 to 240 are consequential amendments that proposal provides for it, the tenants of the relevant result from the situation that I have just explained. properties in the BID area who have leases that I move amendment 222. have at least five years to run, or the true owners of properties where there are no such tenants, will The Convener: No member wishes to speak to be eligible to vote in the ballot with ratepayers. the amendments. Do you wish to add anything? Section 36(1) of the bill states that BID Johann Lamont: No. I have nothing to add—I arrangements are not to come into force unless have said it all. the proposals are approved by a ballot of the ratepayers who are entitled to vote. Amendment Amendment 222 agreed to. 222 is required as a result of amendment 226 The Convener: Amendment 248, in the name of because proposals may be approved by other David McLetchie, is grouped with amendments eligible tenants and owners as well as by 249 and 250. ratepayers. There will still be a ballot only of ratepayers where the proposal provides for that. David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con): I thank you for welcoming me to the Amendment 229 is the last of the main meeting, convener. I am at this morning’s meeting amendments in the group. Throughout the policy to speak to amendments in my name that we were formulation process, stakeholders have made it unable to deal with last week, as time ran out. clear to us that property owners and tenants that have sufficient interest in properties should be Amendments 248 and 250 are the substantive involved in BIDs where appropriate. Consultation amendments in the group. Amendment 249 is on that has taken place, so the amendments consequential on agreement to amendment 248. provide for that involvement. The need to involve Amendments 248 and 250 address a key issue that group in a proposed BID area means that the relating to business improvement district group must also be able to participate in the voting proposals—the issue of additionality. The purpose procedures. Amendment 229 therefore provides of amendment 248 is to make it explicit in the bill for a required change to the voting mechanism that those who are required to pay a BID levy will where a BID proposal involves ratepayers and receive additional services over and above the other eligible tenants or owners. services that are already provided by the local authority and which are financed out of general Details of the voting procedures will be included taxation, including business rates. Amendment in regulations, but the bill sets out two main voting 248 seeks to do that by requiring the mechanisms. First, those who are eligible to vote establishment of a baseline to make explicit that will participate in a simple head-count vote to additionality. Amendment 248 should be ensure that a majority is in favour of the BID welcomed by the Scottish Executive, and I offer it project. That process will not change if tenants or in the spirit of helpfulness; we are constantly told owners of properties are also involved—a majority that the purpose of a business improvement of persons will still need to vote in favour of the district is to provide enhanced services, and not project. The second mechanism involves a vote simply to extract money from businesses for according to the different rateable values of the services that they have a right to expect from the properties in the BID area. Again, a majority of the taxes that they already pay.