Local Government and Communities Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Official Report 590KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Asset Transfer Request (Designation of Relevant Authority) (Scotland) Order 2019 [Draft]

Item 2 is evidence on a draft instrument that is subject to affirmative procedure. I refer members to paper 1 and welcome Kevin Stewart, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, and Malcolm Cowie, policy manager in the Scottish Government’s community empowerment team.

The draft order has been laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before its provisions can come into force. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited, under agenda item 3, to consider a motion recommending that the draft order be approved.

I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.

Good morning, convener, and thank you. The communities and local government portfolio includes responsibility for embedding part 5 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which concerns community asset transfer requests. The act introduces a right for community bodies to put requests to all local authorities, Scottish ministers and a range of public bodies, as set out in schedule 3 to the act, for any land or buildings that they feel they could make better use of. Under the legislation, community groups can request ownership, lease or other rights as they wish.

The public authorities that are named in schedule 3 to the act must transparently assess requests against a specified list of criteria that are laid out in the act and agree to the request unless there are reasonable grounds for refusal.

VisitScotland now needs to be added to the schedule. It is the lead Scottish Government non-departmental public body responsible for growing and developing Scotland’s visitor economy and for advising ministers on policy in that regard. It has wide statutory powers to promote tourism and has a budget of around £50 million per annum, which is largely funded by the Scottish Government.

VisitScotland has a number of offices and iCentres throughout Scotland. There are 14 offices spread across the country, including the head office in Edinburgh, and 26 iCentres—previously known as VisitScotland information centres—most of which are open every day of the year. Those iCentres welcome thousands of visitors and local residents who are looking for information on the local area, products and services.

We have been working closely with VisitScotland, which understands the requirement that it be added to schedule 3 to the 2015 act as a named relevant authority in its own right. That is necessary because although it is currently listed in the schedule under the entry “Scottish Ministers”, that includes only VisitScotland land and buildings owned or in the care of Scottish ministers, and a number of its buildings are not in that category.

This action will bring VisitScotland’s entire portfolio of land and buildings into asset transfer legislation, including land and buildings that it owns or manages in its own right.

Thank you for giving me the time to speak about the draft order this morning. I am happy to answer any questions that the committee has.

You said that VisitScotland needs to be added to schedule 3 because it owns some property in its own name, as part of the Scottish Administration. However, there are many executive non-departmental public bodies that are not in schedule 3 and are not subject to asset transfer requests. What was the particular reason for needing to add VisitScotland? Have there been particular approaches from communities?

VisitScotland asked the Government to be added to schedule 3. As I explained in my opening remarks, some of the assets are owned by Scottish ministers and some are owned by VisitScotland in its own right. The draft order will bring them all under one umbrella, with regard to the community asset transfer aspect.

Members may be aware that VisitScotland has been looking at its portfolio of properties across the country as it looks towards having a more online presence to deal with its business. In those circumstances, it would be wise—and VisitScotland thinks that it would be wise—to ensure that all those assets are in schedule 3.

Many executive non-departmental public bodies are listed on the Scottish Government’s website, but not all of them are in schedule 3. I think that we added Historic Environment Scotland in 2017 or 2018. Is there any reason for not laying an order that would add them all and be done with it?

Obviously, there are reasons why certain bodies have been added to the act. When my predecessor spoke to the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill, he told committee members and others that the Government would continue to keep an eye on the matter. There was a request from VisitScotland, which is why we have moved on that front. If members want any further details on the issue, I am willing to write to the committee.

My next comment follows up on a point that I made when we considered the Historic Environment Scotland instrument. I have constituents who wished to apply for asset transfer in respect of land that they understood was owned by the City of Edinburgh Council. However, on investigation, they discovered that it was owned by an arm’s-length body whose name escapes me at the moment—it was the business body that the City of Edinburgh Council set up to develop the west of Edinburgh. That body is the owner of quite substantial land assets across the city. I am curious about the process in the Scottish Government. When bits of the Scottish Administration, such as Historic Environment Scotland and VisitScotland, come to you and say that they want to be added to schedule 3, you readily accede. How can communities, which the 2015 act is designed to benefit, get a timeous and predictable response to a request to add a body whose assets they are interested in?

I do not have the details of the situation that Mr Wightman has described, so I am unwilling to commit to anything in that respect. If Mr Wightman or the committee wants to find out further details about the issue that he has described, I would be more than willing to write back to the committee.

The committee will probably write to ask for information about how local communities can get bodies added.

Yes. I am not advocating for particular cases; I just wonder what the process in the Government is. The evidence is that, when a public authority approaches ministers, they lay an order, but if community bodies—

That is not necessarily the case. VisitScotland asked us to look at the matter. We did so and agreed that it should be added to schedule 3. That is why I will move the motion. If similar things crop up with other bodies, we will consider them to ensure consistency. The key thing is that some of the assets that we are talking about are held by the Scottish ministers and others are held by VisitScotland. The approach brings everything under one umbrella to ensure that communities know exactly what the situation is. We will consider any request that comes in and move forward appropriately.

Okay. We will request from you the information that Mr Wightman discussed.

I support what the minister has proposed, but is he happy with the progress that local authorities are making in building capacity so that they are able to deal with asset transfer requests?

It would be fair to say—I have said this to the committee before—that some councils are doing immensely well in dealing with the asset transfer provisions and other aspects of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Other local authorities are a bit behind. I want to see help with community capacity building, where it is required, to allow communities to look at whether it is possible for asset transfer to take place.

There are some very good examples of local authorities going the extra mile in involving communities—East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire have done very well—but some other councils are not at that level. As I have said before, I am keen to ensure that best practice is exported not only among local authorities but among communities. There are some good community networks out there that pass on information and help communities. We are doing well in a lot of places, but there is still a way to go in others.

Thank you. That brings us to agenda item 3, which is formal consideration of motion S5M-15748.

Motion moved,

That the Local Government and Communities Committee recommends that the Asset Transfer Request (Designation of Relevant Authority) (Scotland) Order 2019 [draft] be approved.—[Kevin Stewart]

Motion agreed to.

The committee will report on the outcome of our consideration of the instrument in due course. Does the committee agree to delegate authority to me to approve the final draft of our report?

Members indicated agreement.

---

The Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 (Remuneration) Amendment Regulations 2019 (SSI 2019/23)

Item 4 is consideration of an instrument that is subject to negative procedure. I refer members to paper 2. The instrument has been laid under the negative procedure, which means that it will come into force unless the Parliament agrees to a motion to annul it. No motions to annul have been lodged. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has not drawn the instrument to the Parliament’s attention on any of its reporting grounds.

As members have no comments, does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

09:57 Meeting suspended.  

09:59 On resuming—