Local Government and Transport Committee, 25 Apr 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Official Report 200KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

There are six items of subordinate legislation to consider. Members will be aware that Fergus Ewing has asked a number of questions in relation to some of the instruments, and copies both of Fergus's questions and of the response from the Executive have been circulated to members. I think that Fergus wants to refer to one or two points in the course of our deliberations. We shall take each instrument in turn.

---

Local Government Pension Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/123)

No points have been raised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee and no motion to annul has been lodged. This is not one of the instruments on which Fergus Ewing wishes to comment, so do members agree that the committee has nothing to report on the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Non-Domestic Rates (Levying) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/124)

The Subordinate Legislation Committee raised a point on the instrument, and an extract of its report is annexed to the covering note. In response, the Executive has accepted that the instrument was defectively drafted and has agreed to lay a new instrument correcting the error and revoking the defective instrument. The new instrument—SSI 2006/158—is also on today's agenda. On that basis, do members agree that the committee has nothing to report on the instrument?

The correcting instrument—the Non-Domestic Rates (Levying) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2006—states that the transitional relief provisions are to be self-funding. I asked whether, if that is so—and I understand the reasoning set out in the regulations—the transitional relief scheme for the 2000 revaluation was self-funding, now that the outturn figures should be available. The answer that I received from the civil service stated that, in the limited time available, it was unable to locate the calculation. It would be interesting to see whether the previous scheme was self-funding, as that might provide some pointers for the future. I hope that that information will be forthcoming.

On a more political note, the SNP would like to see a far better deal for small businesses in comparison with the likes of Tesco, which has today reported profits of more than £2 billion. We believe that the burden of rating should be shifted from small businesses, which are penalised at the moment, to larger businesses, without increasing the overall tax yield. So although we will support the regulations today, we do not think that they go far enough.

I note that position, although I also note that the Scottish Executive's response states that a majority—72 per cent—of businesses in Scotland benefit from the existing small business rates relief scheme.

Are members content that we have nothing to report on SSI 2006/124?

It appears that we can report a change in policy. Fergus Ewing supports increased taxation of business profits, which I think the committee will welcome, because large businesses should pay more tax—I take it that by "large" Fergus Ewing means "profitable". I hope that the SNP suggests changes that will generate a greater yield from more profitable businesses and impose fewer penalties on less profitable businesses.

We note your comments, but we are moving away from consideration of the regulations. Are members content that we have nothing to report on the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Non Domestic Rating (Rural Areas and Rateable Value Limits) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2006 (SSI 2006/125)

The Subordinate Legislation Committee raised no points on the order and no motion to annul has been lodged.

I note that Turriff, in Aberdeenshire, is spelled wrongly in the list of excluded localities in designated rural areas. I would hate someone to find a legal loophole because of that.

It was not immediately evident from the information that was supplied to the committee which localities would benefit and which would lose out. In fact, a number of places will benefit and only one—Newtonhill in Aberdeenshire—will lose out, but that was impossible to ascertain unless one had sight of the Non Domestic Rating (Rural Areas and Rateable Value Limits) (Scotland) Order 2005, which the Executive did not supply. Perhaps in future the committee could be given less opaque explanations of the impact of subordinate legislation.

We will draw the misspelling of Turriff to the Executive's attention. Fergus Ewing makes a fair point, and it would be reasonable to point out that explanatory notes that are supplied with instruments should make clear the instruments' purpose. An explanation that identified the areas that will lose out on rural rates relief could have been supplied with the order.

On that basis, are members content with the order?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Gambling Act 2005 (Licensing Authority Policy Statement) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/154)

The Subordinate Legislation Committee's comments on the regulations are attached to the briefing note that members received, but no motion to annul has been lodged. Are members content that we have nothing to report on the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Erskine Bridge (Temporary Suspension of Tolls) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/157)

No points were raised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee and no motion to annul has been lodged.

I was curious to know why the tolls on the Erskine bridge are being scrapped by an order the title of which refers to "Temporary Suspension of Tolls", because I thought that the Executive had eventually agreed that the suspension would be permanent. However, when I read the Executive's explanatory notes it became apparent that there are technical reasons for the wording.

Although the Executive cannot quite bring itself to say this, the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968 remains on the statute book and the Executive has been unable to confirm to me that it will be repealed. As long as the 1968 act is extant, tolls can be reimposed by a future Executive—although a Scottish National Party Executive will not do that—so a Frankenstein option is available. The SNP wants to revoke the 1968 act, but the order will serve during the short period before we are able to do so.

I note that the written response to your questions indicates that ministers intend to repeal both the 1968 act and the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 2001. I am sure that they will welcome your full support when they introduce those measures.

Can you clarify, convener, whether this means that until the principal statute is repealed statutory instruments to suspend tolls for three months will appear regularly?

That is not the case. My reading of the Executive's explanation is that the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 2001 extended the tolling period by five years. You will remember the controversy over that. Basically, if the Erskine bridge tolls were to continue beyond July, there would have to be a new Erskine bridge tolls act or a new order to extend the tolling period by a further five years. The order before us is just to cover the period from April to July.

Do members confirm that we have nothing to report on the order?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Non-Domestic Rates (Levying) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/158)

The final instrument is the Non-Domestic Rates (Levying) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/158). We partly dealt with this instrument when we discussed the incorrect regulations that these regulations replace. The Subordinate Legislation Committee raised no points on the regulations and no motion to annul has been lodged. Do we agree that we have nothing to report on the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.