Hansard

I thank all those who gave evidence—either written or oral—to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, which helped us in our deliberations. I also thank the committee’s clerking team, which, as usual, was excellent in the tasks that it had to deal with.

It is fair to say that on a number of issues the committee was unanimous and that on other issues there was some controversy. I am sure that other members will bring some of that controversy into play during the debate.

I should perhaps begin with the non-controversial part of the bill—the housing support grant element. A cross-party group from the committee had the pleasure of visiting Shetland. As usual, the population of Shetland provided us with a warm welcome. Shetlanders are extremely canny people and they lobbied hard for the retention of the grant. However, it has to be recognised that Shetland Islands Council is the last council to be in receipt of that grant and the circumstances of the borrowing that it has made are somewhat strange.

As the minister pointed out, unlike most other authorities it has not borrowed money from the public works loan board—instead, it has borrowed money from its own harbour fund. Canny as the Shetlanders are, the harbour fund has been charging them interest and, in some regard, the housing support grant has been helping to pay that interest to increase the harbour fund. The committee unanimously agreed that that could not go on and recognised that the £15 million transitional fund that was asked for was not really a goer either. However, hats off to the Shetlanders for their lobbying efforts.

In moving from the area of complete agreement to the areas with some controversial aspects, I will deal with the housing element first. In terms of what the minister has just said, the committee would welcome the £200 fine for not registering an empty property going up to £500—the committee would see that as going in the right direction. The committee will look at that again at stage 2 but, quite frankly, the committee felt that a £200 fine for not registering was not that much.

The committee welcomes the fact that there is local input to setting rates. Coming from a local government background, I always welcome the flexibility of allowing our local councils to do such things.

There was a huge debate about whether those moneys should be ring-fenced to be put back into housing. Again, coming from a local government background, I am not really in favour of ring fencing, but the committee fully endorsed the proposal to get the accounts after implementation to show where the money has been spent.

The longest part of my speech will probably be on the non-domestic rates proposals, because that is the area in which there was some disagreement in the committee. We certainly welcome the fact that industrial and listed buildings will be exempt from the plan. I welcome the minister’s comment that there might be a look at a relief element if a property is filled, because that was a topic of discussion in the committee. A number of organisations that appeared before the committee argued that the proposal was a bad thing, but no one likes new taxes—let us be honest about that. If it is possible to try to stop a tax, people will do everything that they can to do so.

There were also elements of discussion in the debates that were held at committee about different things happening in different areas of the country. It would be beneficial if the minister could have a look at that.

The minister rightly pointed out that the power is an enabling power only, that there are no plans at the moment to introduce it, and that if there were such plans, the matter would come back to the committee for a further look-see during consideration of the instrument that would need to be passed. That is one reason that the minister has given for there being no business and regulatory impact assessment, or BRIA. There was some debate about whether a BRIA should have taken place beforehand, and I am sure that other members will pick up on that point as the debate progresses.

There was a robust debate on that part of the bill dealing with the cost to the public sector if this measure is implemented. The minister has stated that the costs to the public sector will be £1.8 million. According to the Scottish Property Federation it may be up to £3.6 million. However, costs of £1.8 million or £3.6 million should be compared to the complete rates bill of £2.3 billion or so—we need to take account of that.

I have not referred to many of the other elements of the bill, but the Local Government and Regeneration Committee will discuss a number of those elements during its stage 2 scrutiny. I am pleased that the minister continues to consult stakeholders because some members of the committee were critical of a lack of consultation. I am pleased that he has said he will look at the fine for non-registration of an empty property as that was a major element in discussion. I hope that, when amendments are lodged, he will look at some form of relief for filling properties.

I look forward to the debate in committee at stage 2, which I am sure will be as robust as that which we had during stage 1. I look at colleagues as I say that. I enjoy Local Government and Regeneration Committee meetings because people are frank, but we all come out still speaking to one another—99 per cent of the time, at least. I hope that we can do exactly the same thing at stage 2.

14:50