Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee 04 December 2013

04 Dec 2013 · S4 · Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee

Item of business

Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

McDougall, Margaret Lab West Scotland Watch on SPTV

This set of amendments aims to deal with the issues that were raised in evidence on the idea of linking planning fees to performance. The question on that proposal was one of the most frequently answered of all the consultation questions, and many concerns were raised at that stage.The amendments that I have lodged seek either to remove the section entirely or to add certain safeguards to the process.Amendment 120 seeks to ensure that the Scottish ministers must prepare and publish guidance that sets out the principles to which they must have regard in determining whether the functions of a planning authority are not being, or have not been, performed satisfactorily, and outline that guidance before Parliament. The definitions of “satisfactory” and “non-satisfactory” are set out nowhere in the bill, and they could be very subjective concepts. Amendment 120 would ensure that the process is rigorous.Although I welcome the minister Derek Mackay’s confirmation to the committee that the Scottish Government would provide assistance to improve a planning authority’s performance before resources are removed, I feel that the bill should contain a statutory requirement to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken before ministers are allowed to place sanctions on a planning authority. That is what amendment 121 adds to the bill. It seeks to ensure that the provisions do not adversely affect a planning authority’s performance or range of services. If these provisions are genuinely being introduced to improve and incentivise planning authorities, it makes no sense to penalise them to such an extent that their performance is further affected—which could, in turn, result in their being penalised further through no fault of their own.Amendment 123 states that, before any changes are made, the Scottish Government must lay before the Scottish Parliament“a statement setting out ... the percentage variation by which, and ... the period for which,”it proposes“to vary the fee or charge”.That would ensure that the power could not be misused and would offer safeguards that I feel are not explicitly set out in the bill. It would also allow Parliament to scrutinise the changes, which, again, would provide additional safeguards that are not present in the current bill.These three amendments will not drastically alter the function of section 41; instead, they will strengthen the proposal by adding safeguards that are not currently present, ensure that planning authorities are not unfairly penalised and allow parliamentary scrutiny of changes. They will also add transparency and openness to the legislation, which is something that I hope all committee members would support.Failing any amendment of section 41, I have lodged amendment 124, which seeks to remove the entire section from the bill. As COSLA’s Stephen Hagan stated in a letter to the committee, the changes provide for“fundamentally too much Ministerial interference in the operations of a specific council service”,while Unison said that scrutiny of the process was“the role of democratically elected councillors”not of central Government. This bill demonstrates the Scottish Government’s worrying trend towards centralisation. We should not be taking functions away from local councils but extending them through more devolution.As I have said, my preferred option is the removal of section 41; indeed, it is the only sensible option, as the section potentially gives the Scottish ministers too much control over the planning process. There are no safeguards in the bill and we have only the minister’s word that all reasonable steps will be taken to support and improve a planning authority’s performance. The bill contains no function for proper parliamentary scrutiny of proposed fee variations and COSLA has made it clear that it does not want this provision in the bill.I move amendment 120.

Search Hansard contributions

Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee 04 December 2013

In the same item of business