Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Communities Committee, 27 Sep 2006

27 Sep 2006 · S2 · Communities Committee

Item of business

Planning etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Lamont, Johann Lab Glasgow Pollok Watch on SPTV

Amendment 246 is not only unnecessary but misconceived in relation to section 33; indeed, I think that the member is simply trying to undermine the whole BID policy. This might be obvious, but I point out that if the scheme were voluntary we would not have a problem and would not be considering other approaches. The fact is that some of our town centres require more than they are receiving at the moment.The whole point of BIDs is that businesses can decide for themselves whether they want to set up a BID and then work together for the benefits that it can bring. Of course, in preparing a BID proposal, they need to consult and seek the agreement of their local council.I understand that some businesses are concerned about what a commitment to a BID will entail. In particular, I am aware of reports in some quarters that the BID levy might be as much as 10 per cent of rateable value. However, our guidance makes it clear that the levy should usually be no more than 1 per cent of rateable value. Indeed, the levy will be stated in any BID proposal that is voted on. We are also working with the pilot BIDs to find not only ways in which BID boards might raise funds other than through the levy but—just as important—ways in which they can help cut businesses' costs. I am also aware of some businesses' concerns that councils might reduce their service provision but then seek to reinstate it with funding from the BID levy. We have taken steps to guard against such an outcome. Secondary legislation that we will introduce will oblige councils to provide in advance of the BID ballot a list of their current service provision in the BID area so that businesses can, before they vote, see exactly what the council plans to provide. Furthermore, we have made it clear that the BID board should involve the council fully in setting up the BID.A strong local business sector will benefit not only businesses but the council and wider BID area. In fact, experience from south of the border is that some councils have actually increased—not reduced—services that are provided to BID areas.Beyond fundamentally affecting the operation of BIDs, the proposal in amendment 246 would simply add further bureaucracy by requiring not only that a ballot be held but that every business issue a written undertaking that it will pay the levy for the duration of the BID period. The amendment would also undermine the financial viability of the BID proposal and is unfair because it would mean that some businesses in the BID area would have to subsidise others. In short, it would substantially undermine the BID arrangements.Amendment 246 also seeks to allow any organisation to opt out of any payment for a BID project even after the project has been properly approved and agreed by other businesses and groups in the area, under the required voting procedures. That would be unfair. We believe that businesses will benefit from being part of a BID. Based on experience elsewhere, the majority of business organisations in Scotland agree with that view.Amendment 246 would undermine the BID policy and is unnecessary for all the reasons that I have given. As a result, I ask Mr McLetchie to seek to withdraw it. Amendment 247, which is also in the name of Mr McLetchie, seeks to restrict payment for BID projects only to occupiers, and to permit owners in a potential BID area to be excluded from the levy. The bill already allows for owners to be excluded, but only if the BID proposer considers that to be the best approach for the local area. We believe that that is the right approach. The whole philosophy behind BIDs is that businesses themselves decide what they want, so BID boards should have flexibility over who is invited to participate in the ballot and in the BID project.Both the BIDs working group that we set up, which contained public and private sector representation, and the majority of responses to our public consultation earlier this year urged us to legislate for owners to be part of BIDs. Their participation will allow BID projects to be stronger because a greater range of interests will be involved, and will reduce the risk that owners will benefit from a successful BID project in the form of higher rental values at the expense of occupiers who pay the levy. I therefore ask the committee to reject amendment 247.

Search Hansard contributions

Communities Committee, 27 Sep 2006

In the same item of business