Local Government in Scotland Bill: Stage 2
Our next item is the Local Government in Scotland Bill. This is the third day of our consideration of the bill at stage 2. I welcome Peter Peacock, who is the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services, and his officials.
On a point of order, convener. We have before us a number of Executive amendments, some of which are lengthy, detailed and complicated. They were not flagged up to us at stage 1—indeed, no evidence was taken on them. I am concerned that the committee is being asked to consider such amendments at this stage. I wonder whether the committee should ask for the amendments that deal with the waste management plan and the rating system to be subject to consultation before we consider them.
You made your point of order just as I was about to say that I am not at all happy about the fact that we are faced with a considerable number of large and complex amendments. The timing has meant that we have not had the chance to scrutinise them. However, I would not want us to consult on the amendments or to subject them to further scrutiny, because that would mean that we would not finish our consideration of them today. As we have a timetable to meet, it would be better for us to continue. I put it on record that I am not happy that the committee is being asked to consider substantial amendments without having had much time to scrutinise them. I hope that the minister and the Executive will listen to my comments and that the Parliamentary Bureau will examine the timetabling of such matters. Other members of the committee are welcome to add to my remarks.
I have similar concerns. Committees are always asked to undertake full consultation. In this instance, the committee is faced with huge amendments. The bills that the Parliament is dealing with are ill thought out and are being pushed through far too quickly. Beyond the lack of time to take evidence, there is not enough time to scrutinise what is coming through. I am unhappy about the lodging of the Executive's amendments.
I share the committee's concerns, even though I am slightly sympathetic towards the amendments. The amendments are substantial and we have not had time to scrutinise them. Evidence should be taken on them at stage 2.
I will not comment on Sandra White's comments about ill-thought-out legislation, given some of the business that the committee will deal with over the next few months. Although I share the concerns that have been expressed about the number of amendments, it is not true to say that none of them was flagged up. For example, the committee is aware that proposals on changes to the rating system arose from previous consultation. We need the minister's assurance that, in the light of any comments that the committee might make at this stage, he will give reasonable consideration to amendments at stage 3, when people will have had a chance to consult further. I understand the convener's point that the timetable of business that the committee must get through before the end of the parliamentary session makes it impossible for us to have full consultation on the Executive's amendments.
I would like to move that we ask the minister to withdraw the amendments, to allow time for consultation to take place.
You should wait until we reach the appropriate part of the agenda before taking any such action. I intend to proceed with business. You can speak to the amendments as they arise.
In that case, may I move that the committee takes a decision that we do not consider the amendments until adequate consultation has taken place?
I have made a ruling that I intend to continue with stage 2 consideration, so you are asking the committee to make a decision on its confidence in the chair. It is my decision that we will continue with the process. When we come to the relevant amendments, you will be able to take the action that you believe is appropriate. You will have an opportunity to oppose the amendments and to say what you have to say then.
With respect, the issue is whether the committee should be discussing the amendments at all. I am not proposing a debate about whether the amendments should be moved. I am moving that we should follow up our concerns by taking action to ensure that consultation takes place before we consider the amendments.
Although I have some sympathy with what you say, I point out that you are moving a motion without notice. I am ruling that I will not accept it. If you wish to pursue it, you question the convener's position. That is entirely up to you.
On a point of order, convener. Is not it the case that the amendments before us today have been deemed competent and so we have no choice but to consider them as part of the stage 2 debate?
Yes.
On a point of order, convener. It is also within the remit of the committee to hear evidence on amendments at stage 2. That is precisely what I suggest that the committee do.
I support what Iain Smith said. He is correct. Some of the amendments are on areas that we have considered before. Some might not be. Therefore, it is right that we consider them one at a time.
Tricia, what do you want to do? You have tried to move a motion without notice and I am not accepting it. If you press it, you challenge my position as convener.
I would never challenge the convener's position—yours or anyone else's—unless I felt that they were acting outwith their responsibilities. You are not doing that. You are perfectly entitled to make the ruling and I accept it.
After section 25
Amendment 105 is grouped with amendments 80 to 82 and 100.
If I may, I will respond briefly to the procedural debate that the committee has just had. I note the comments that the committee—particularly the convener—made. I think that the committee will agree that our approach throughout the process has been to consult extensively and to seek co-operation with stakeholders and the committee. Throughout the process, we have taken care to flag up the fact that all the amendments were coming, although I accept that the detailed words that effect the policy intentions have, in some cases, come later than we might have liked. A number of the amendments that we will consider today have been consulted on. I will draw out the points as we go through. In fact, some of the amendments are the result of consultation.
The measures in amendments 105, 80 to 82 and 100 stem from the Executive's consultation paper "Rate Relief for Small Businesses", which was published in February 2001. The committee may recall that Andy Kerr announced a package of rate relief measures for small businesses and rural communities in December last year. He also said that implementation of the rural rate relief measures would require primary legislation. I previously advised the committee that we planned to achieve that through the bill. That is the background to the amendments that we are considering today.
The Scottish Executive has a policy of encouraging farmers to make more efficient use of the resources that are available to them. Farm diversification offers farmers and their immediate families the means to supplement their income and to ensure a sustainable future. Property used for agriculture is exempt from non-domestic rates, but non-agricultural activities are rateable. Therefore, farm businesses face a new rates liability when they move any of their property from agriculture to non-agricultural use. That is considered a barrier to diversification into non-agricultural activities.
Amendment 105 introduces a new rate relief to aid that transition. Mandatory 50 per cent rate relief will be available to qualifying properties, with a rateable value threshold of £6,000. Local authorities will have discretionary powers to top up that rate relief up to 100 per cent. The scheme will be available for five years from the date on which the proposed new paragraph comes into effect. The five-year period could be extended further under the powers given, with any additional property receiving relief for a maximum of five years.
It is also argued that the efficient use of agricultural resources is inhibited by the fact that the agricultural exemption from non-domestic rates does not extend to certain non-traditional business structures and arrangements that remain entirely agricultural and are based on farms—for example, machinery rings. Amendment 82 amends section 14 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963, thus allowing the rating exemption to apply to buildings used for agricultural purposes related to any agricultural land, regardless of whether that land is occupied by the person carrying out the agricultural operations on the land. Exempting from rates certain buildings used in connection with agricultural operations encourages farmers to work together in co-operative ventures and to make more efficient use of the agricultural resources that are available to them.
In recognition of the continuing concern about the decline in services in small rural areas, we have lodged amendment 80, which extends the scope of the existing village shop rate relief scheme to small food shops. Unlike the existing rural relief scheme for general stores, a qualifying small food shop will not need to be the sole such trader in the area. Fifty per cent mandatory rate relief will be provided to qualifying food stores with a rateable value of no more than £6,000.
The rate relief measures announced in December last year included widening the scope of the rural relief scheme to include small hotels, pubs and petrol filling stations and introducing a small business rate relief scheme. Those measures can be achieved with secondary legislation under existing powers. However, primary legislation is required in the case of small food shops.
Amendment 81 provides for the exemption from rates of automatic telling machine sites in designated rural areas, which will help to maintain an important local service in areas of low population.
The amendments implement our previously announced policy and are the Executive's positive response to recommendations for rate relief contained in the Scottish national rural partnership report entitled "Services in Rural Scotland". The package of rural rate relief and exemption measures will contribute towards the quality of life of those living in rural Scotland by enhancing access to services as well as helping farm businesses.
I move amendment 105.
In relation to amendments 80 and 81, I obviously support the proposal that rural communities should have many food stores and automatic telling machines. However, I seek the minister's views on the point that food stores and ATM sites in areas of deprivation in towns might also warrant such rate relief.
I, too, welcome the proposals contained in the amendments. However, I will highlight one or two points of detail that I hope that the minister will address in his summing-up. I have already raised with him a general concern about the definition of a rural area, which is presently defined as an area that is not urban and that has a population of fewer than 3,000 people. There are problems with that definition, not least of which is the fact that it is based on the 1991 census. I presume that there will be a review of those areas based on the results of the most recent census, which are now available.
Secondly, there is a problem with the inclusion in some rural areas of institutions that are not strictly part of the community. For example, the number of patients in hospitals in rural settings might have fallen significantly in recent years, but those numbers are still counted as part of the census. In such cases, the communities in question are affected by the definition of rural. I hope that the minister will consider coming up with a definition that would exclude such institutions.
I would also be grateful if the minister could clarify what is meant by the word "mainly" in amendment 80. I assume that the intention behind the amendment is good and means that small village butchers, bakers and greengrocers will be able to qualify for rate relief. However, if a bakery sells hot pies or if HM Customs and Excise defines its cakes as confectionery, it might be excluded from relief because its business does not consist "mainly" of the sale of food. I hope that the minister will clarify that point to ensure that small places are not disadvantaged by selling small numbers of hot pies.
Finally, I am concerned that a number of premises use ATMs as a commercial operation to make extra money; in other words, they charge people for using them. I wonder whether the legislation will exclude such sites and whether it is intended mainly to cover machines that are left behind when banks disappear to ensure that communities have access to them.
Sylvia Jackson and Iain Smith have covered many of my points and questions. I want the minister to define what is meant by rural in the phrase "rural settlements". I have never yet seen a definition of rural and I am not convinced that every public body uses the same definition. We need to have a definition in the bill so that we can all be sure about what is rural and what is not.
Sylvia Jackson made the point that some urban settlements also need access to automatic telling machines. While I understand the reasons for having some sort of relief for ATMs in rural areas, there is surely an argument that some urban areas are in as great a need of ATMs. I ask the minister to respond to that.
I support what everyone else has said regarding rate relief for food stores and ATMs. Although some members of the committee have said that there was consultation, I do not think that there was enough. If proper consultation had been conducted on amendments 80 and 81, certain groups would have suggested that there should be rate relief for shops and ATMs in poor urban areas. There are many huge peripheral housing schemes that have a bigger population than some rural areas and I would like their difficulties to be acknowledged in the bill. The proposals are welcome and will help rural areas, which suffer due to their geographical location, but I think that the measures should have been discussed in relation to peripheral housing schemes, which often have only one little shop that sells basics such as bread and potatoes for a higher price than supermarkets do.
I welcome most of what is contained in the amendments. Giving rate relief to agriculture businesses to help them to diversify is to be welcomed, but I wonder whether the minister has thought about other kinds of businesses in that regard, particularly fish processors, which are often an important part of the rural and urban environment in parts of Scotland. Might rate relief be extended to other kinds of business?
I welcome the fact that the committee is not seeking to minimise what is contained in the amendments but is trying instead to extend the policy dramatically.
Sylvia Jackson, Tricia Marwick and Sandra White asked whether the policy might be applied to ATMs and food stores in urban communities that face difficulties. I am familiar with those arguments. We have not sought to deal with that problem in the bill principally because we have not debated that policy area in public before and we are seeking to extend an existing scheme on which we have already made policy announcements. However, I am more than happy to take the points that have been made to colleagues in the Executive who deal with issues concerning urban communities facing difficulties. They will be able to examine the issues that have been raised, although not necessarily in the context of this bill. I am sure that the issues that have been raised will resonate with those people and that they will want to have the chance to consider them.
Iain Smith and Tricia Marwick asked for a definition of a rural area. I will give that if I can. I understand that schedule 2 to the Local Government and Rating Act 1997 legislates for rural settlements. They are defined by the Non-Domestic Rating (Rural Areas and Rateable Value Limits) (Scotland) Order 1997, which limits them to a settlement with a population of no more than 3,000. The method used to define rural areas is based on locality information taken from the 1991 census of population undertaken by the General Register Office for Scotland. I will give you the definition and pick up on Iain Smith's points. Given that there has been a census recently, we will need to review the definitions and thresholds in the near future.
That review will also take the opportunity to consider the particular anomaly that Iain Smith has raised whereby a small community that would otherwise be designated as rural is pushed over the threshold because it has a significant institution on its doorstep. We will consider that when we receive the census data and we have written to the committee clerk indicating that we will do that.
Iain Smith also asked about the definition of "mainly", which tries to characterise the primary purpose of the outlet. We are trying to capture businesses that were not covered by the previous definition of a general store. If the primary purpose of the store is to sell foodstuffs, and there is a table in the corner where people can sit and have a cup of coffee and chat with their friends while they are in the shop, or if the shop sells half a dozen hot pies or cakes, it is not intended that that store will be disqualified.
I do not think that an amendment about hot pies or confectionery will be required. The clear intention is not to exclude properties, but to ensure that a new range of properties can benefit. Activities that are at the margins of the store's purpose, such as those that Iain Smith has talked about, should not affect their status. Ultimately, it will be up to the local authority to decide what is meant by "mainly". We trust that local authorities will make that decision responsibly.
On charges for ATMs, there is a difference between free-standing ATMs in shop premises and those that are on the walls outside former banks and so on. I made inquiries about the matter earlier today and I understand that there is a legal challenge to the current rating practice and the status of some of the free-standing machines. I am not able to comment on that in detail at this stage, but I will be happy to supply Iain Smith with more information about the situation at the first available opportunity. In the meantime, I encourage the committee to support the amendments.
Amendment 105 agreed to.
Amendments 80 to 82 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Amendment 83 is grouped with amendment 101.
As I explained at the informal briefing session with the committee, the prescribed industries are electricity, gas, water, rail, train operating companies, and large docks and harbours. Currently, those industries have their non-domestic rateable values set, or prescribed, by order. Prescribed assessment was introduced in the post-war years.
The Scottish Executive sees a strong case for ending prescription at the 2005 non-domestic rate revaluation but we intend to consult on that. I stress that point. If we decide to proceed, those industries would be returned to conventional rating, which is in line with the position in England. The industries concerned are expecting that move. I previously advised the committee that the amendments would be forthcoming. Without further legislation, it would be difficult to carry out a conventional valuation of the industries.
The Scottish Assessors Association has been consulted on amendment 83 and welcomes the enabling powers in it. The purpose of the amendment is to provide the Scottish ministers with sufficient order-making powers to enable Scottish assessors to carry out a conventional valuation of those complex industries as efficiently and effectively as possible. That will be achieved by providing for the combining of lands and heritages that are situated in more than one valuation area for the purposes of valuation.
Once that valuation has been completed, such lands and heritage could either be entered into a single valuation roll or apportioned to the valuation rolls of the relevant rating authority areas. In addition, the Scottish ministers may, by order, enable a single assessor to be responsible for valuing an industry as a whole throughout Scotland and to deal with any subsequent appeals. Orders will be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny and the Scottish ministers will be required to consult before making any such orders.
On the general issues in relation to returning the prescribed industries to conventional valuation, the Scottish Executive intends to consult the industries concerned and others over the coming months. There will be a three-month consultation period. Amendment 83 does not commit the Executive to a particular course of action; the new powers in the amendment are purely enabling and will be used only for industries that are confirmed as returning to conventional valuation at the 2005 valuation. That will be after the consultation is complete.
I move amendment 83.
Amendment 83 agreed to.
Amendment 84 is grouped with amendments 84A, 84B and 102. I ask the minister to move amendment 84 and to speak to all the amendments in the group.
On a procedural point, can you confirm that you are asking me to speak in advance of Bruce Crawford's moving amendments 84A and 84B?
Yes. I will also invite you to speak later.
Okay. I shall change my plan. I will speak to amendments 84 and 102 and raise questions concerning Bruce Crawford's amendments later.
Amendment 84 would introduce a new duty on local authorities to prepare integrated waste management plans. Because such plans will include recycling, the separate need for a recycling plan is repealed. The measures incorporated in those plans will facilitate the move to sustainable waste management, which is a challenge for the whole of Scotland and, in particular, for local authorities. The Executive consulted local authorities and other key stakeholders on the measure earlier this year, and I have discussed the development of the amendment with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Local authorities have been broadly supportive of the amendment, although concerns were raised that we should not be over-prescriptive.
In 1999, the "National Waste Strategy" was published. It set out future plans for Scotland's waste. Also in 1999, the landfill directive was adopted by the European Community. That directive sets binding targets for the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste that is sent to landfill. Those measures are important in protecting the environment and human health from the effects of waste disposal, in increasing the efficiency with which we use natural resources and in reducing emissions of methane—a powerful greenhouse gas. The Scottish Executive recognised the importance of waste management in the recent Scottish budget, making £230 million available, over three years, to the strategic waste fund to assist local authorities to achieve those goals.
Local authorities and COSLA have been involved in the development of the national waste plan and area waste plans that, when published, will set out policy measures aimed at achieving the objectives outlined in our national waste strategy. Area waste plans cover strategic groupings of authority areas or single, geographically large, authority areas. However, the planning structure must extend to the level of the individual local authority, as a large part of the responsibility for delivering national waste objectives lies with individual local authorities as the waste management authorities.
The integrated waste management plans that would be introduced by amendment 84 would ensure that the activities of individual authorities contribute to the achievement of the area waste plan targets that have been developed with the full involvement of local authorities. The plans would also take account of the statutory targets that the Executive will set individual authorities for the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste that is sent to landfill, to meet EC obligations that are specified in the landfill directive. The plans would ensure that the individual authorities consider the possible gains from joint working with other authorities to achieve those goals.
Amendment 84 would give ministers the power to impose modifications to a local authority's plan, if necessary. Thereafter, the local authority would have a duty to endeavour to perform its duties in line with the plan. Ministers could require monitoring information and an explanation for any missed target.
Amendment 84 contains no power to direct local authority actions beyond the preparation and monitoring of the plans. The amendment is consistent with the general approach of the bill of focusing on outcomes while giving councils sufficient freedom to act as they see fit to meet those outcomes. The measure is designed to support our overall waste management strategies and to complete the suite of powers that are necessary for consistent implementation of our objectives and EC directives.
Although I have not yet heard Bruce Crawford's arguments, I appreciate the intention behind amendments 84A and 84B. Amendment 84A is, however, unnecessary because the powers that amendment 84 would give ministers to set performance targets include the power to set recycling targets. Amendment 84B would introduce potential inflexibility, which might create difficulties.
Through the measures we have proposed, we want to ensure that local authorities make progress towards recycling and composting more waste. The statutory targets that the Executive will set for local authorities to reduce landfill will be a great pressure for that progress. However, local authorities are best placed to judge what balance of measures will achieve progress in the best interests of their local communities. We do not want to be overly specific in setting targets, which would risk forcing local authorities to take actions of questionable worth simply to hit the targets.
The area waste plans have been constructed on the well-recognised and well-respected methodology of the best practical environmental option, which should provide solutions that are environmentally favourable and efficient and will be the source of targets for the integrated waste management plans. We must remember the overall context of the bill, which is deliberately drafted to increase, within a framework, the trust in local authorities to act in their communities' interests.
Amendment 84B is unnecessarily inflexible. A requirement to achieve recycling targets as the amendment envisages would not be in the spirit of the bill and might on occasion run counter to best value.
I make it clear that the Executive will set performance targets for integrated waste management plans that are in line with the area waste plans. We will also set targets for recycling and composting that take account of the area dimension, not just individual local authorities. Those targets will be consistent with the Executive's national target of 25 per cent recycling and composting by 2006. Local authorities will have a duty to endeavour to carry out their waste management functions in accordance with the plans and therefore with the targets.
On the basis of those clarifications and assurances, which are now on the public record, I invite Bruce Crawford not to move his amendments, which are unnecessary to meet his objectives.
I move amendment 84.
I ask Bruce Crawford to move amendment 84A and to speak to the other amendments in the group. The minister will have an opportunity to say more on the matter later, if he wishes.
Perhaps the minister's disadvantage in not hearing my arguments is to my advantage. I hope that, when I have finished, he will change his mind about amendments 84A and 84B.
The minister mentioned the introduction of statutory targets for landfill, which is the intent behind amendment 84 and other provisions that will come through the waste management strategies. I am sorry that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development is not here, but I take the present minister back to a press release of earlier this year. According to that press release, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development said at a conference that the Executive intends to produce
"a national strategy which will include mandatory recycling and waste reduction targets for every local authority."
That statement, which is in black and white, is the basis for my amendments. Perhaps the minister can convince me that one minister is right and another is wrong. I look forward to that argument.
The way in which we deal with waste in Scotland is unsustainable and impacts on health, the environment and the economy. The latest figures for Scotland show that each year we dispose of around 3 million tonnes of household waste, 7 million tonnes of industrial and construction waste and 2 million tonnes of commercial waste. The waste is sent to landfill sites, of which there are more than 260. As members are aware, landfill sites are causing increasing concerns because of the dangers to human health, the leachate they produce, the nuisances they create such as smoke and pests, their encouragement of the waste of valuable resources and their contribution to climate change. Because of those concerns, the Executive has, rightly, introduced proposals for waste management through various plans, including the area waste plans. That is the right way to approach the issue and there is real pressure from the European Union to start to deal with it, because of the issues around landfill.
Some 80 per cent of the household waste stream that we produce in Scotland can be recycled, but we recycle only 6.1 per cent. Our recycling rates are among the worst in Europe. Switzerland recycles more than 50 per cent of household waste and the Netherlands and Austria recycle 45 per cent. The benefits of recycling are there for everyone to see. I do not want to rehearse them, although I could.
The minister mentioned landfill tax, which has been a mixed bag as far as recycling is concerned. Some authorities have used the landfill tax and the credits that flow from it to increase their levels of recycling. Perth and Kinross Council is one of the best authorities in Scotland for that as far as I can see: it recycles 17.1 per cent of household waste, although 11 per cent of that is made up of compost. Some authorities have used the incentives that the extra costs of landfill bring, but others have ignored landfill tax and continue to pay the price.
Other measures such as waste minimisation and packaging reuse and refurbishment could be implemented, which would make a difference, but the crucial factor that would make the biggest difference is leadership—which is what I thought Ross Finnie was talking about when he announced the national waste plan. To be fair to the Executive, it has announced a target of 25 per cent of waste to be recycled or composted by 2006. Whether that target is sufficiently stretching is not the issue for today. The question today is whether, given what Ross Finnie said, the Executive has the courage to show the required leadership and to embrace mandatory recycling targets for every local authority.
We simply have to get Scotland off the bottom of the European recycling league and off the top of the European landfill league. I believe that mandatory targets are essential not only because they will show leadership, but because they will provide the clearest of signals to local authorities that the Government is serious about tackling a national disgrace. In asking for the amendments to be agreed to, I am trying to achieve the thrust of what the Minister for Environment and Rural Development announced on 2 February this year. Other reasons why that should not happen might have crept in, but we need to know what they are.
I move amendment 84A.
The key point is that we are talking about integrated waste management plans. That is why I have concerns about amendment 84A, although I do not disagree with the sentiments behind it. I have raised repeatedly the problems of the poor, and in some cases lamentable, recycling performance of some councils. Fife is a classic example of an area that used to have an excellent recycling record. North East Fife District Council was one of the leading authorities in Scotland in recycling, but the new Fife Council has since achieved one of the worst recycling records in Scotland—indeed in Europe—with less than 2 per cent of household waste being recycled. I do not disagree with the sentiments behind amendment 84A; I am just not convinced that it is necessary.
Surely the key is that we are creating an integrated waste management plan for each local authority within the national waste strategy. Within that strategy, issues such as targets and plans should be developed as part of an integrated approach. The point about recycling is that it is third in the waste management hierarchy. The first requirement is to reduce the amount of waste that is created. Secondly, we should be seeking to reuse wherever possible. Recycling is only the third part of the approach. It seems a bit strange to create in the bill a mandatory target for the third part of the hierarchy, without first addressing the first two. That is why I think that what amendment 84A proposes is unnecessary.
Targets to reduce the amount of waste and landfill are part of the national waste strategy from which the integrated waste management plans are drawn. I do not think that it is appropriate to fit targets for recycling into the bill, as an add-on, without referring to reduction and reuse.
I am slightly concerned about proposed new section 44ZB. My concerns relate to the approval of integrated waste management plans. It is not clear from the bill as drafted in what circumstances the minister can refuse to approve a plan or how modifications to it can be made. I presume that the new section refers to the plan's not meeting the objectives in the national waste strategy. Perhaps the minister could reflect on that for stage 3 and consider whether there needs to be clarity as to the circumstances in which a minister can refuse or modify a local authority's waste management plan.
I am also concerned that it seems that no parliamentary scrutiny is involved in the system. If the minister refuses to accept a local authority's waste management plan, at what point does the Parliament get a chance to say whether the minister or the local authority was right? A reporting mechanism on the adoption of waste management plans in general might be introduced, so that the Parliament has a form of scrutiny as to how the minister is implementing the plan. Perhaps the minister can reflect on that before stage 3.
I agree totally with Iain Smith's comments. No one is claiming that current performance on waste and recycling is good. Therefore, better measures must be put in place.
Bruce Crawford proposes targets for recycling. As I understand it, we are not precluding targets. They will be considered in an integrated way. However, the minister must clarify how the targets will be set and how they will develop. The main point, which Iain Smith made, is that because the committee heard only the rationale behind the bill today, there may have to be some changes and modifications at stage 3. It is only right that that should be so: the committee cannot respond in such a rapid manner, and it would be wrong to do so.
Given that the committee has not collected evidence on the issue, will the minister outline what evidence has been collected? What information has been given to other committees, such as the Transport and the Environment Committee, about what COSLA, the councils and other bodies feel about the proposals? The minister mentioned that COSLA does not want a prescriptive approach. I assumed that he was using that as an argument for saying that some of Bruce Crawford's comments may be inappropriate.
Bruce Crawford's amendments would enhance the proposed new section, especially where he mentions the fact that local authorities intend to meet targets, which is something they must do. There is a bigger plan, but this is a local government bill and local government will implement the waste strategy measures. It is, therefore, only right that the bill should refer to that.
I approve of Bruce Crawford's amendments, but our position and Sylvia Jackson's comments on it show that there has not been adequate consultation. The committee does not know how much consultation has taken place. I have great concerns, especially with proposed section 44ZB, which refers to the approval of integrated waste management plans. It seems to give most of the powers to the Scottish ministers. Councils will not have the power to appeal. It states that ministers can approve, refuse or modify a plan, which does not give councils much scope to question decisions.
This is not so much an ill-thought-out proposal as one on which there has not been enough consultation. The committee has not scrutinised enough evidence to approve the bill.
When the minister was speaking about Bruce Crawford's amendments he said that they would, on occasion,
"run counter to best value".
Will he explain what he meant by that?
I am concerned about amendment 84. It appears that local authorities will prepare plans and that ministers will consider them and suggest changes. The performance levels that local authorities endeavour to meet will be notified to ministers and local authorities will have regard to matters that the ministers may direct. Ministers will approve integrated waste management plans.
What happens if ministers have seen and approved waste management plans but local authorities do not carry out the plans as approved? What sanctions do ministers have to encourage, or coerce, local authorities to meet targets? There must be targets. That is why I will support Bruce Crawford's amendments.
Targets are necessary to ensure that local authorities' waste management plans lead to an outcome. The committee often talks about outcomes, but I do not see any in terms of waste management. I can see outcomes in terms of waste management plans, but I cannot see outcomes in terms of how local authorities will manage the waste. That is the fundamental issue and that is why there must be targets.
Minister, do you want to respond to all the points?
Yes. I will try to pick up on as many points as I can.
Iain Smith, and to some extent Sylvia Jackson, asked whether there could be a reporting mechanism to Parliament when a minister refused a particular plan, so that Parliament could scrutinise the decision. I am happy to reflect on that point. We will check the Official Report of the debate to ensure that we pick up all the points, so that we can assess, in the best spirit, whether we can make refinements at stage 3 that build in the checks and balances that have been suggested.
Sylvia Jackson asked how the targets would be constructed. Our general approach to waste management—and, indeed, the spirit of the bill—is to do things in a constructive partnership with other agencies and to work towards setting targets that are stretching but realistic and achievable. There will have to be many discussions in the context of the national waste strategy and the area waste management plans—which local authorities, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Executive and others are already involved in designing. The implications of that will flow down to the local integrated waste management plans. It is in that spirit that we want realistic targets to be constructed, rather than imposed by one party from afar without taking account of local circumstances.
As to the issue of evidence, Executive officials have spoken to COSLA about that. A huge amount of debate goes on all the time around the issue of waste management. Our evidence so far, as I indicated in my opening remarks, is that local authorities are anxious about over-prescription—I suspect that they would be anxious in that regard about amendment 84A—but they nonetheless understand the importance of the general thrust of the direction in which we are heading. Members should remember that the Executive's amendments are designed to complete our suite of powers to ensure that plans flow down to each local authority for implementation.
Tricia Marwick mentioned my comment about the fact that at any given moment the requirement to meet a specific recycling target may
"run counter to best value".
Circumstances can be envisaged in which at particular moments, depending on the markets for recycling, it may not be best value to pursue particular options within our reporting period for a particular target. That is why there could be conflict between the specific need to meet a rigidly set, centrally directed target and the reality on the ground about meeting that target and meeting best value. That is the point that I sought to make on that issue.
As for sanctions, we are trying to develop a partnership to overcome the problems to which Bruce Crawford rightly referred. There are powers for ministers to direct local authorities to report on the progress of their plans. I am convinced that most local authorities are desperate to make progress. They will not want to fall foul of reporting arrangements. The pressure and tensions built into the system ought to be sufficient to make the progress we want, without being overly prescriptive and overly rigid.
That brings me back to Bruce Crawford's amendments. I completely understand his point about the unsustainable way in which waste management has been conducted in Scotland and how we can do better. He rather spoiled that by trying to turn it into a personalised attack on Ross Finnie, rather than leaving the merits of his argument to stand. That did not particularly add to his argument. This is not about courage and leadership, other than that already shown by the Executive in that other provisions in the bill will lead to real progress on how we plan for improvement in managing our waste.
For courage and leadership, one should look at the Scottish budget, where we have the biggest ever increase for recycling and waste management. That is courage and leadership from the Executive—and I am sorry that Bruce Crawford tried to turn it against Ross Finnie. He also tried to draw a distinction between what I said and what Ross Finnie said. There is, of course, nothing between us on this. As I said, local authorities are under a duty to endeavour to carry out their waste management functions in accordance with their plans, which will contain targets. There is nothing inconsistent in that.
Iain Smith made the key point, which is that we are trying to get an integrated waste management plan at local level that plays against all the factors that must be taken into account and does not lift one particular factor above any other. He talked about the three elements of the waste management hierarchy and asked why we would attach particular attention to only one of them. That is why we talk about integrated waste management plans: they are designed in consultation with all the key players and place a duty on local authorities to endeavour to secure the targets in them. We think that that is the right balance, which is why we do not think that Bruce Crawford's amendments should proceed.
I was interested in Sandra White's comments, because while she said that she would support Bruce Crawford's amendment, she also argued that we ought to give councils room for manoeuvre. That is exactly what Bruce Crawford is trying to stop. I therefore encourage Sandra to persuade him not to press his amendments.
I will wind up quickly. I was certainly not attacking Ross Finnie. I thought that I was giving him some credit, because he showed leadership and courage in what he said last February. I am not seeing the same commitments that Ross Finnie made from this minister.
The press release says that the national strategy
"will include mandatory recycling and waste reduction targets for every local authority."
In the meantime, the law is to be changed by amending the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to give ministers the power to set targets. We are discussing that act today. This is the right place to introduce that thrust in the legislation. It is patently not present in the way Ross Finnie intended.
Had the minister told me that the Executive would re-examine the bill and suggest other amendments at stage 3, which might have brought the Executive up to date with its own commitments, I would have felt obliged to not move the amendment. The minister has put no such obligation to me. I am only following through now what Ross Finnie wanted to do in the first place.
The question is, that amendment 84A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 84A disagreed to.
Amendment 84B not moved.
Amendment 84 agreed to.
Amendment 85 is grouped with amendments 86, 87, 88, 95 and 103.
I shall speak to all the amendments in the group and move amendment 85. Perhaps Bruce Crawford might want to stay and listen to what I am going to say, as he campaigned on the issue over a number of years.
This group of amendments will enable one of the most far-reaching and significant changes in the system of local government financing that has occurred in the past 25 years. The changes that the amendments herald will give local authorities more flexibility and local choice on the question of capital borrowing and investment.
The changes respond to arguments and discussions, which have lasted for as long as I can remember, between local authorities and central Government about the system of capital spending controls. They complement the many other changes to the system of local government finance that have been introduced over the past three years, such as the removal of spending guidelines and three-year revenue and capital budgets, which have pushed capping into the background of public policy. In essence, the changes will move a centrally authorised and tightly controlled capital investment regime to one that is more attuned to local need, as determined by the local authority, within a prudential framework.
For the past year, the Scottish Executive has been involved in discussions on this matter on a UK-wide basis. Those discussions have involved a wide range of bodies with a common interest, including central Government, local government, the accounting profession, independent specialists in capital financing and the Public Works Loan Board. The discussions focused on whether it would be possible to develop a new way of controlling capital spending by local government and, by implication, the borrowing and taxation that are needed to support it, to replace what is known in Scotland as the section 94 consent regime.
Amendment 95 provides for the repeal of section 94 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, and amendments 85 to 88 provide for its replacement. Some spending will be supported by capital grant, but the majority of local authority borrowing and spending will be governed by regulations. The regulations will introduce what is coming to be known as the prudential regime. That means that we intend that the basis on which decisions are taken to borrow or spend will be regulated by reference to a code of practice that is being developed by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, in close consultation with the Executive and representatives from local government.
Central Government will have powers in reserve. We would not use those powers lightly and we would be required to report to the Parliament on any occasion when they were used. As much as any of us may wish to remove the potential of any control, local authority capital expenditure is public expenditure and it is a factor in the overall UK fiscal policy, which is controlled. Public expenditure that is not met by council tax and national taxation adds to the public sector borrowing requirement and thus to national indebtedness.
The main point of the amendments is that, under the prudential regime, we intend authorities to have responsibility for making prudent and affordable local investment decisions. That represents a major shift in emphasis, and I am delighted that we have been able to make that shift in our current approach. Our focus in the discussions was not on how much local government should borrow and spend on capital works and assets. Instead, we concentrated on how local government should make its decisions to spend at the local level.
That approach reflects the new focus on trust within a framework that is represented by the Local Government in Scotland Bill. The detailed design of the prudential system and, in particular, the development of a code of practice are proceeding in parallel in close dialogue with all the key interests. Similar provision is being made in England and Wales through the next local government bill there. All three jurisdictions intend that the new arrangements can be finalised in time for commencement at the beginning of the financial year 2004-05.
It gives me particular pleasure to move amendment 85.
It would be inappropriate on such an occasion in the history of local government for members of the Local Government Committee not to comment. Amendment 95, which will repeal section 94 of the 1973 act, is the most significant amendment that I have seen to any bill for some time. Those of us on the committee who have a local authority background have sought that repeal for longer than any of us can remember—indeed, that hope has been around for longer than any of us has been in local government. I welcome the minister's assurance that the technical language of the other amendments means that the prudential scheme will be introduced.
The minister said that central Government would "have powers in reserve". I seek assurance from the minister when he sums up that the power to impose capital expenditure limits is intended as a reserve, and that it is not intended that amendment 86 would reintroduce section 94 consents by the back door, as that would certainly not be welcome.
This group contains an important series of amendments that will be welcomed by local government throughout Scotland.
I am sure that other members of the committee would agree with that.
I can confirm the point that Iain Smith has made. The purpose of the amendments is to change the emphasis from central control to local decision making. Local decision making involves weighing up all the factors about what can be afforded at the local level and taking into account central Government support for local decisions. In that context, it is not envisaged that ministers would need to use the powers to control capital spending, except in pretty extreme circumstances. It is very much not our intention to use those powers.
Amendment 85 agreed to.
Amendments 86 to 88 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 26—Remote participation in and calling of local authority meetings
Amendment 89 is in a group on its own.
Section 26 allows councils to hold meetings by means of remote participation. General policy on the issue was included in the white paper "Renewing Local Democracy: The Next Steps". Amendment 89 is purely a technical amendment to clarify that, in section 26(2), the decision to hold a meeting of a local authority or its committees by remote participation must be taken by the convener or the deputy convener of the group that is holding the meeting, not by the convener or deputy convener of the authority as a whole.
I move amendment 89.
Amendment 89 agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
After section 27
Amendment 90 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 90 deals with the funding of safety camera partnerships in Scotland. Such partnerships are typically formed by the police board, one or more local authorities acting as the roads authority, the district courts and the Scottish Executive's road network management and maintenance division, which has responsibility for trunk roads in the locality.
Following a successful pilot in Strathclyde, the partnerships are now being rolled out across most local authority areas in Scotland. By agreement with the Treasury, funding for the partnerships is drawn from the income that is generated by the fixed-penalty notices that they issue, so there is no cost to the Scottish Executive.
At present, funding for the partnerships comes from existing powers under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 and the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Amendment 90 would provide Scottish ministers with a tailored funding power whereby ministers would be enabled formally to ring fence the money from receipts for reinvestment. The amendment would also allow the Executive to make payments to safety camera partnerships to meet the expenses that they incur.
Amendment 90 would enable the Executive to specify conditions for receipt of the funding. In other words, we would be able to set out the rules of the scheme for centrally funded safety camera operations in Scotland. The tailored funding power closely mirrors that which is in operation south of the border under the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001.
I move amendment 90.
At an informal meeting of the committee, I asked what colour the speed cameras would be. The question may seem insignificant to some, but there are two ways of stopping people speeding. One way is to give plenty of warning that there are speed cameras in the area; the other is to try to catch people by stealth. A memo has been provided, and I note that the cameras will be yellow and black or yellow and red.
Given the fact that the funding for the partnerships is to be income generated, will the signs for the speed cameras be well placed so that motorists can see them from quite a distance, rather than hidden behind a tree or something, as sometimes happens in rural areas? Some folk think that speed cameras should be more visible. The cameras will be coloured, but will there also be signs leading up to the camera locations to give motorists plenty of warning about them?
I am aware that part of the matter that Sandra White raises is outwith the scope of the bill. It is up to the minister whether he responds to those points.
The minister spoke about the provision under subsection (1) of the proposed new section, which reads:
"The Scottish Ministers may make payments in respect of the whole or any part of the expenditure of a local authority or a joint police board".
In the case of unitary authorities such as Fife and Dumfries and Galloway, which do not have joint police boards, can the local authority itself decide to apply for payments, or will there be some sort of joint partnership between the authorities and other agencies? If so, which agencies?
I will respond to Tricia Marwick's point first. As I interpret it, the powers that we are seeking to apply are intended to cover a situation that does not pertain in Fife and Dumfries and Galloway, in the sense that the powers are to be given to ministers in order to fund partnerships that might involve more than one local authority. Fife and Dumfries and Galloway, on the other hand, are self-contained, and money could flow through those councils, as the police board in each of those areas is part of the council for the purpose of the provisions.
Generally speaking, the aim is to widen our powers so that we may be able to fund partnerships if that is deemed to be the appropriate thing to do. The partnerships would generally be between the police board, one or more local authorities, the district courts and the Executive. The measures are intended to give us the flexibility to meet the changing circumstances that are emerging in Scotland.
Even in unitary council areas such as Fife and Dumfries and Galloway, it is entirely possible that the local authorities would choose to enter into a partnership for the delivery of the various services. The provisions would allow the flexibility to accommodate those circumstances and would not under any circumstances prejudice Fife or Dumfries and Galloway.
I noted your ruling on camera colours, convener, and I think that I will steer well clear of that matter.
Amendment 90 agreed to.
Amendment 91 is in a group on its own.
As I explained at our informal session on 31 October, amendment 91 was recommended to us by the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority, and we considered it to be of merit.
As the committee knows, Strathclyde Passenger Transport is made up of two parts. The Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority sets the policies; the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive implements those policies. The SPTA and the SPTE are separate entities according to statute, but they work together closely to deliver public transport in Strathclyde. Currently, the SPTA can delegate its functions only to its committees or to its chairman. That is unlike the situation in local authorities, in which elected members can delegate to officers what they see fit.
We want to allow the SPTA to be able to delegate such of its functions as it sees fit to its secretary. The SPTA comprises 34 elected members, who are nominated to the authority from the 12 councils in the Strathclyde area. A new authority is formed following local government elections. However, that process can take some time following the elections. The constituent authorities have to convene their first meetings after the elections before they can nominate their respective representatives to the SPTA. The first meeting of the SPTA then has to be arranged. All in all, it can take up to two months following local authority elections before the SPTA can hold its first meeting. The fact that no decisions can be made by the SPTA's secretary for about two months could have widespread implications.
The other good reason for amendment 91 is that, unlike in a local authority, elected SPTA members cannot delegate functions to their officers on a day-to-day basis. The proposed power of delegation for the SPTA will allow a smoother-running, more effective authority.
I move amendment 91.
Amendment 91 agreed to.
Section 28—Parliamentary procedure for regulations about vehicles used as taxis and private hire cars
Amendment 92 is also in a group on its own.
The aim of section 28 is to remove an anomaly by ensuring that all regulations that are made by ministers under section 20 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 would be subject to parliamentary procedure. New Westminster legislation has since inserted a further regulation-making power in section 20 of the 1982 act, which already specifies the parliamentary procedure. Amendment 92 regularises matters, allowing for a proper fit between the new Westminster legislation and the Local Government in Scotland Bill.
I move amendment 92.
Amendment 92 agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 29 and 30 agreed to.
That concludes today's stage 2 proceedings on the Local Government in Scotland Bill. It is clear from the comments of committee members—including me—that the fact that we have received large amendments at the last minute has caused some difficulty; we have not had a chance to look at them properly or to consult on them. Perhaps the minister could take that point away with him.
The Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services will remain with us for the next agenda item. I suspect, however, that he will be supported by a different set of officials. I ask the minister to take one hat off and put another one on; we will then move straight to the subject of renewing local democracy. We will have a break after that. I suspend the meeting to allow the minister's officials to swap over.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—